White House Correspondents Insider

Behind the scenes of the most powerful city in the world — Washington, D.C. — and those who cover it.

  • Home
  • About
  • WHC Garden Brunch
  • Washington Insider
  • Archives
  • Contact

Archives for July 2012

CNN's Jim Walton to Leave as Worldwide Chief

July 27, 2012 By WHC Insider

CNN Worldwide president Jim Walton announced today that he will step down as chief at the end of the year citing that “CNN needs new thinking.”  An statement from Walton came in an email to staff early this morning but he had been discussing this transition with Turner Broadcasting chairman, Phil Kent for quite some time.

Kent released a statement saying :

“Jim is the leader we all aspire to be: Smart and steady, tough and fair, business-savvy and respected by his team, and with a track record of great judgment when it matters most.  His vision has modernized and globalized our legacy news brand, enhanced CNN’s journalistic standing, positioned it at the forefront of multi-platform branded news content and challenged the organization to think bigger, reach further and do better.  I am honored to work alongside him and proud to call him my friend.”

In a piece by the Huffington Post, by David Bauder, Walton was credited with building “the company into a profitable international news organization in his 10 years as president of CNN Worldwide, and said it is on track for record profits this year. But the U.S. network is the most visible part of the business and is now entrenched in third place behind rivals Fox News Channel and MSNBC in prime time.”

Kent began his career at CNN in 1981 working as a TelePrompter operator and “ripping paper scripts off wire machines” working his way up over 22 years when he came president of CNN worldwide in 2003.

Read his full statement as released by TV Newser below:

After more than 30 years at this company and nearly 10 years as the leader of this great news organization, I have decided to leave my role at CNN on December 31, 2012.

For some time, I’ve been talking with Phil Kent about wanting to make a change, and he supports my decision. I’ve told Phil that I will cooperate with any transition timeline that he and Time Warner want to implement.  Phil requested that I work out the year and be available after that if needed, which I’ve agreed to do.

I am proud of what we have accomplished together over these last 10 years – innovative programming, the development of great talent in front of and behind the cameras, expansion in digital and mobile, significant investment and expansion in international coverage, financial success and, most importantly, great and trusted journalism.  Thank you for the role you have played in our successes.

CNN needs new thinking.  That starts with a new leader who brings a different perspective, different experiences and a new plan, one who will build on our great foundation and will commit to seeing it through.  And I’m ready for a change.  I have interests to explore and I want to give myself time to do it.

The next few months will be filled with election news and other important events that will require all of our focus to report the news with the quality and expertise the world expects of CNN.  I look forward to working alongside each of you, as I have over the past 30-plus years, to do just that.

Jim

Filed Under: News Media Tagged With: CNN, Jim Walton, News, Phil Kent

Doug Wilson: President Obama’s former Pentagon Communications Head, headlines a piece in the Huffington Post

July 24, 2012 By WHC Insider

Romney Abroad — Back to the Future

As seen in the Huffington Post

As Mitt Romney prepares to depart for his overseas visits, there are some questions worth raising to which voters being asked to make him Commander-in-Chief deserve an answer.

Not the political questions, including why he’s going abroad, and where. Those answers are clear: It’s clear that Romney wants voters to believe that, while it may not be his strength, he’d be an acceptable foreign policy president. It’s clear that when Romney’s in London, he wants American voters to think Olympics and give him points for his role in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games. It’s clear that by going to Israel, he wants us to believe he’ll be a better friend to Israel than President Obama has been. And it’s clear that in Poland, he wants Americans to remember that it was only just last century that the world was divided between Them — the Soviets, er, Russians — and Us, and with Them, you can’t have it both ways. There’s not much nuance here, unless you define nuance as the particular categories of religious and ethnic voters to whom these messages are targeted – and the swing states in which those voters live.

But if this election really is going to be as close as predicted, we have to go over the head of the Romney spokesperson who said last week, in response to a question about Afghanistan policy, “I’m not going to get into the details of that”. We have to insist that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee himself get into the details of some basic questions on national security. Like these:

  • Who speaks for you on national security? Is it John Bolton, the ultra-hawk who turned off not only the British and other US allies but other conservatives in the Bush Administration with his extremist views; Bolton, who denounces Obama Administration-led international sanctions against Iran — the toughest ever imposed, the first to include China and Russia — and crosses his fingers that international negotiations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons will fail so we can get to the military options? Is it Senator Rand Paul, who last year said it was time to end US aid to Israel? Is it former Navy Secretary John Lehman, who hasn’t given up on his 80’s push for a 600-plus-ship Navy and who worries openly about the “Soviet push into the Arctic”?
  • Where’s the beef? We know with whom you HAVE a beef: President Obama. But where’s the substance? “I would look at the things the President has done and do the opposite” is not a responsible framework either for bilateral policy with Israel or for US national security policy. Do you or don’t you believe we should go to war with Iran? What specifically would you do to address the Iranian threat that is different from what President Obama is already doing? Do you believe there are still viable options for dealing with the Iranian threat short of war? What would your proposed military action against Iran involve, and how would you deal with its potentially destabilizing consequences? Do you or don’t you support the framework for security transition in Afghanistan developed by our top military and civilian leadership and supported not only by our NATO and ISAF partners (including Britain and Poland) but by a majority of the American people? If yes, will you say so clearly? If no, will you outline your own plan for continued US military engagement in Afghanistan? Will you really “just do what the commanders say to do” in Afghanistan? Or will you involve them in developing plans that you, as Commander-in-Chief, will frame? Would you stop US support for Israel’s “Iron Dome” short-range missile shield? Would you direct the Pentagon to reduce its military assistance to Israel? Both of those actions would in fact fulfill your promise to “do the opposite” of what President Obama has done to support Israel.
  • In what century do you plan to conduct your foreign policy? Granted, the world was a dangerous place during the Cold War. It has become an even more dangerous place during the first twelve years of the 21st century. There are fewer simple, bumper-sticker, zero-sum answers to national security issues. We have heard little or nothing from you on topics like al-Qaeda and counterterrorism, let alone issues like cyber security and the rise of a new generation of national and regional leaders from Europe to the Middle East to Asia. Committing US troops to solve every problem, whether military or non-military, is a knee-jerk option supported neither by current international circumstances nor by most Americans, including the military.
  • How will you determine what to spend on defense? Faced with the most difficult national economic circumstances in three generations, a Congress divided on how to address them, and a need to find487 billion in defense savings over the next ten years, President Obama directed his military and civilian Pentagon advisors to find those savings — but to do so based on a national security strategy that would keep America safe and secure, and its military strong and the best in the world. The political and civilian leaders, generals and admirals, working together, did just that. How would you do it? By framing national security in terms of spending 4% of GDP on defense, which you have said you will do? How and why did you come up with that number? (With the2 trillion defense budgets that result, you’ll definitely be able to buy lots of700 hammers and toilet seats.) By defining your strategy in terms of cutting almost 20 percent across the board from government spending? Returning veterans and military families, among others, might have some questions about what that means for them.
  • How should we judge you as a potential Commander-in-Chief and world leader? Over the next several days, the world will see you rightfully hailing the leaders and citizens of the UK, Israel and Poland — three strong and important partners of the United States — as allies and defenders of freedom and democracy. No argument there. But voters deserve to know much more about how you, as a potential President and Commander-in-Chief, view the world. How you understands its realities. How you will deal with the details. How you will make the tough choices. What you will ask of the American people to support your decisions. What role ideology will play in making your decisions and in choosing the team that implements them. Where you specifically differ with the current President, and what specifically you would do differently. Whether you have the political courage to say where you agree with him — and why.

So far, what we have heard is a cacophony of divided, ideological and often-extreme voices echoing from the Bush years and speaking in your name; opportunistic accusations instead of well-articulated policy proposals; and simplistic defense-spending formulations tied neither to clearly-developed national security strategy nor to the economic realities we face. Voters deserve to know if that’s all there is. If it is, it sounds like you will be taking us back to the future — to the George W. Bush foreign policy years.

As President and Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama has stepped up to the plate. He has shown he can and will be tough in protecting America’s national interests. And his actions in doing so have by and large been smart and pragmatic rather than reckless or ideologically-motivated. Consequently, for the first time that I can remember, a Democrat is the preferred choice of voters over a Republican as Commander-in-Chief and leader on national security issues. For Mitt Romney just to aim for a “gentleman’s ‘C'” as an acceptable alternative is not likely to change that. Neither is the prospect of taking us back to the future.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Doug Wilson, Mitt Romney, Pentagon, President Obama

Pamela Harriman Foreign Service Fellows honored at State Department

July 5, 2012 By WHC Insider

The Benjamin Franklin diplomatic room at the U.S. Department of State was filled with past and future dignitaries and diplomats to honor the 10th anniversary of the Pamela Harriman Foreign Service fellowship program.  In partnership with the College of William & Mary, they provide “funding for students interning over the summer in the U.S. Embassies in London, Paris, or the Secretary of State’s Office in Washington, D.C.”  Pamela Harriman was married to the son of British P.M. Winston Churchill and later became the U.S. Ambassador to France; she passed away in 1997. Her granddaughter, Jennie Churchill, thrilled the gathering by greeting guests and fellows alike.

Welcoming the star-studded crowd was President Obama’s Chief of Protocol, Ambassador Capricia Marshall, described the Ambassador as “proud to be an American by choice” and retold the story of the first time she met Ambassador Harriman: “She was the first person who hosted President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton for dinner at her home in Georgetown and I remember that moment meeting her and thinking, what an extraordinary person, so poised and elegant, I really think I’m going to like Washington.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was traveling, sent a letter that Ambassador Marshall read to the crowd: “…this fellowship remains a vital tool of diplomacy.  With a myriad of challenges we face around the world, it is essential that we cultivate a new generation of young leaders who will work together to find solutions, forge peace, and foster prosperity…. Ambassador Harriman was an extraordinary woman whose dedication to public service remains an inspiration.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein called Pamela Harriman, “A true original. She sought out new challenges with dedication and enthusiasm.  She traveled the world and discovered how dialogue, communication, and clear understanding of history and culture could bridge differences between foes and lead to mutual, beneficial solutions.”

Jennie Churchill told the rapt crowd, “Having lived through the Second World War and been closely involved with my great grandfather, Sir. Winston Churchill, Pamela understood the importance of diplomacy and politics to peace and life in a democratic world. From her husband, Averell Harriman, who was governor of New York, and a leading diplomat, Pam also learned much about world politics and met leaders on both sides of the Iron Curtain.  She lived a fascinating life, at the forefront of world events.”

His Excellency Francois Marie Delattre, Ambassador of the French Republic; President Emeritus Timothy J. Sullivan of the College of William & Mary; Governor James Blanchard, also spoke fondly of their time with Ambassador Harriman and her impeccable ability to serve with grace and dignity.

Janet Howard, who served as Director of Mrs. Harriman’s political committee and Chief of Staff for many years, was recognized from the podium for her incredible work on behalf of the fellowship program. Howard recently retired as Vice President at the Coca Cola Company.

After the remarks, 14 former fellows joined for a group photo, many of whom have gone on to public service and will continue Ambassador Harriman’s legacy. Other guests included Ina Ginsberg, Sen. Chuck Robb and Linda Robb, Stuart Eizenstat, Ambassador Lloyd and Ann Hand, Marc Adelman, Allen Fleishman, Bob Barnett, Candy Stroud,  Liz Stevens, Ann Jordan, Dr. Billington, Bill and Dorthy McSweeny, and former Speaker Tom Foley and wife, Heather.

Check out more photos from the event:

Filed Under: Event Coverage, Washington Events Tagged With: Ambassador Capricia Marshall, Jennie Churchill, Pamela Harriman, Secretary Clinton, state department

Search WHCInsider

2022 WHC Garden Brunch

About White House Correspondents Insider

Exploring “behind the scenes” of the most powerful city in the world — Washington, D.C. — and those who cover it.

We track the White House Correspondents’ weekend and all the activities around it, from journalists and media companies to the White House and politicos.

Tammy Haddad is Co-Founder and Editor-In-Chief of WHC Insider and CEO of Haddad Media.

White House Correspondents Insider is not affiliated with or approved by the White House Correspondents’ Association, which is a registered trademark of the WHCA.

Cone of Silence Podcast

WHCA Seating Chart

Connect

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Flickr
  • Apple
  • Google
  • Instagram

Copyright © White House Correspondents Insider

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.