CNN announces John King as permanent replacement for Lou Dobbs in early 2010

John King, the host of CNN's Sunday program State of the Union, has been named as the permanent replacement for outgoing 7 p.m. weeknight anchor Lou Dobbs, who abruptly resigned Wednesday after more than 25 years working at the cable newschannel.

The choice of King, a former reporter for the Associated Press who has steadfastly avoided the opinionating many anchors indulge on cable news, answers one of the biggest questions CNN faced when Dobbs' departure was announced.

Given CNN's sagging primetime ratings and the success of rivals featuring more opinionated shows in prime time, some wondered if Dobbs' departure would give the channel a chance to change its middle-of-the-road approach.

(it may also offer a statement on the advantages of mastering new technology early; King distinguished himself during the 2008 elections by nimbly handling CNN's touch-screen video wall display during election returns and political analysis segments.

Scheduled to start early next year, King's show is expected to focus on politics and analysis -- it remains to be seen how this show would be different than the show airing right before it, Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room.

Until King debuts, the channel plans to feature a rotating lineup of anchors at 7 p.m.

And CNN expects to replace King as host of the Sunday State of the Union program, though no name has been released yet.

The speed of the King announcement also hints this was something CNN management may have seen coming; lending credence to news stories saying Dobbs had met with the channel's executives several times.

Click below to read CNN's release:

John King to Helm New Daily Political Program on CNN

                CNN anchor and chief national correspondent John King will take the helm of a new weeknight political program to air on CNN at 7 p.m., beginning early next year, it was announced today by Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/U.S.

As one of the nation’s leading political reporters, King will host a definitive political hour that goes well beyond the surface of the day’s top stories to provide in-depth analysis and context to key political movements in Washington and across the nation. As King does on his Sunday program, State of the Union, he will sit down with a wide range of the day’s top newsmakers, key political reporters and analysts, and elected officials.

“The program will reflect what CNN is all about: straight facts from our anchors and the widest range of opinions from across the political spectrum,” said Klein. “John has enthralled CNN viewers with his vast political knowledge, and he has spent the past year reporting from beyond the Beltway on pressing policy issues and the real people they impact. Every night, he’ll share his passion and his insights about what is really going on in Washington and across America.”

“I’m thrilled to have the opportunity, at this busy and consequential time, to have a platform to discuss and explore the big issues of our time,” said King. “There is a lot of noise and conflict in our political discourse, which is fun to cover, but I’m convinced from my travels that people also thirst for more details as well as insight and context. I’m looking forward to combining those conversations with top newsmakers, smart reporting and expert analysis.”

King joins the weekday roster of CNN journalists that include Wolf Blitzer, Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper and Larry King. He will continue to anchor State of the Union until early next year.

King joined the network in 1997 after a 12-year career at the Associated Press, and launched the network’s successful Sunday program State of the Union earlier this year.  Since the launch of State of the Union in January, King has delivered numerous news-making interviews, including those with President Barack Obama, former Vice President Dick Cheney, Gen. George Casey, Secretary Robert Gates, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, Admiral Mike Mullen, Gen. Colin Powell, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and key members of Congress and state officials. Moreover, in the 45 weeks on the air, King has visited 45 states with his Sunday program, looking beyond the beltway at the pain of the recession, the health care debate and other national challenges.

Comments

[lolzer]

Funny, Larry. CNN isn't exactly unbiased journalism. I guess Dobbs' version was just not the kind of biased opinionated commentary you couldn't stand - unlike the other offerings of CNN.

[Judith]

I hate to listen to John King, mumbles his words and not very intelligent, alot better newsmen out there, alot!

[Sarah]

Lou Dobbs is great, digs out the truth on all subjects regardless of which tank CNN is in. John King is a DUD!!

[Jeff]

I'm sorry Lin, but I don't think your arguments match the facts.

First off, your statistic about women making $0.70 for every $1.00 men make is very misleading, especially the way you use it. The only way to compare is to keep everything equal, save gender. Please cite a study that does so.

Secondly, many women are not in the same place as men because, like it or not, it was (and still is to some degree) a societal norm for women to leave the workplace to give birth. This sets women back in their career paths and ultimately depresses their earnings.

Third, claiming the workforce should reflect the gender, racial, and sexual orientation of society at large is unrealistic. Do you think the NFL should be more than 50% women? How about warehouse jobs that require heavy lifting? Sure, some women could physically perform the labor, but the vast majority could not. Also, one of the saddest facts of life in this country is the disparity in education levels. Unfortunately, there's a reason black males have a markedly higher unemployment rate. Their high school graduation rates are (or at least were) below 50%. You can't expect access to 'plum' jobs without the requisite education.

Those who decide based on race/gender/sexual orientation are pathetic creatures. But that goes both ways.

[CP]

Lin Young,
I was just commenting that your statement that blacks..."who finally won the right to vote with passage of the Voting Rights Act on Aug. 6, 1965..." is not factually correct. I am not arguing that it was very difficult or impossible for blacks to vote in many cases. I am only stating that they were given the right to vote well before women won the right to vote.

I, being a middle aged white man, would not have a problem throwing out many of the old white men in congress and replacing them with qualified women and African Americans. We need term limits and laws making it illegal to give to political campaigns, but that is a topic for another discussion.

[Lin Young]

CP: If the 15th Amendment prohibiting states from preventing citizens from voting had worked, there would have been no need for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Not only were blacks killed or threatened with death for even trying to exercise their 15th Amendment right to not be prevented from voting, but blacks and whites were getting killed for just trying to register blacks to vote.

What good was the 15th Amendment when most blacks lived in areas of the country where they weren't allowed to vote?

Remember the murder of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner in Mississippi on June 21, 1964. They were trying to register blacks to vote and were killed.

Some white men will do anything to maintain power.

[Eric Deggans]

There's a difference between having the right to vote and the ability to vote.

Southern states in particular were notorious for forcing black people who wanted to vote to submit to tests which they knew no one would pass to win the right to vote.

It took federal intervention to stop these impediments to voter registration as late at the mid-1960s.

So having the right on paper is a lot different than being able to utilize it...

[CP]

Lou Dobbs should have been fired long ago. How this racist, hate spewing POS held on to his job this long is beyond me.

Lou is also a hypocrite. He says we should buy American but he does not even own an American made car. His cars include: A convertible 1998 Aston Martin DB7 Volante, a silver 2004 BMW convertible, and two BMW X5 SUVs. All registered in his wife's maiden name.

[CP]

Lin Young,
African Americans (men) won the right to vote on February 3, 1870 with the Fifteenth Amendment to the constitution. While it is true that the civil rights act broke down many of the barriers that were put up to prevent African Americans from voting, blacks were able to vote long before women were allowed to vote. I would think that this bit of information would help your argument.

[Lin Young]

Bob H: You wrote, "I'm not saying that minorities and women shouldn't be paid the same as white men and be considered equally for job openings, but in the end if I'm doing the hiring, I want the best possible person in that position."

That seems to imply that you think the best qualified person is always hired and that women and minorities are less qualified than white men or they would have already achieved equality.

Women didn't get the right to vote in the United States until 1920.

Obviously, if men wouldn't even permit a woman to vote, they sure weren't going to allow one to run for president. And the same held true for blacks who finally won the right to vote with passage of the Voting Rights Act on Aug. 6, 1965, four years after Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961.

Hence, the very fact that we have not had female presidents, and just got our first black president, is proof of discrimination in this country, not a lack of ability.

Often the best qualified applicant is a woman, but she can't get hired for the job because of discrimination. The fact that you would think that women weren't qualified because they didn't already have equality in the workplace reveals a prejudiced mindset.

I'm not talking about rotating people in and out of office based on gender, race and age. I'm saying that if we ever do achieve equality in this country, every elected office and every job will be proof of that fact by reflecting America with every job and elected office filled in proportion to the demographics of this country.

And when we achieve equality, then you will see your desire filled to have the best possible person in various positions. As it stands now, what you often see is just the white guy with the best connections, which is part of why we had a financial meltdown in this country.

Look at the top dogs who created those derivatives and other crazy financial products and made a fortune while driving our financial system to the brink of collapse and causing taxpayers to have to bail them out. Look at the faces at the top of the insurance, banking and financial markets. All white men.

[Bob H]

Lin, your logic took a wrong turn somewhere along the way when it came to electing presidents, senators, and representatives.

We only have one president at a time. Regardless of the demographic makeup of the population, the people will elect who they elect. There is no rotating "black, white, Asian, Hispanic, man, woman" program in place for the presidency - or any other elected office.

While your argument may be desirable for the workplace, i.e. hiring should reflect the population, elections simply can't adhere to the same provisions.

And, as Roy mentioned, shouldn't the most qualified person get the job (talking about regular hiring here, not elected office)?

I'm not saying that minorities and women shouldn't be paid the same as white men and be considered equally for job openings, but in the end if I'm doing the hiring, I want the best possible person in that position.

Respectfully,
- Bob

[Roy]

yada yada yada. jobs should go to the most qualified, regardless of (fill in the blank).

[Lin Young]

RagsTTiger: Yeah, and you are going to hear the same ol same ol until women are equal. Just that simple.

The only reason women don't have 50 percent of jobs in every category is because we have been systematically discriminated against. White men were in power, they made hiring decisions and they hired white men who were like them. That is why women were included with blacks in Affirmative Action programs.

Your statement that white males are being displaced assumes that men have a right to all the plum jobs. No, white men aren't being displaced, they are having to compete with women, and others, for a place.

My premise is simple: If discrimination in employment were not a fact, then each category of job would reflect the U.S. population.

In other words, to reflect society, then jobs in every category should have workers who represent the population.

Half the population is male and half female, then it is further broken down by race and age. So, when you enter a workplace and see 100 workers, half of them should be women, about 12% of those black, a certain percentage Hispanic, a certain percentage Asian, and then a certain percentage should be in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. And the same thing for the other half of the jobs that should be held by males.

Management jobs should also reflect America by gender, race and age group. Anything else is the result of discrimination.

U.S. Senators and Representatives, the governors and lawmakers of the 50 states, the county and city government officials of every municipality should also be in balance or we are seeing discrimination.

We have had 44 U.S. presidents and not one a woman, when there should have been 22 female presidents and 22 female vice presidents.

In addition, women still earn about 70 cents for every dollar a man earns. But I don't get a woman's discount on my rent, utilities, insurance, groceries, cable/Internet, telephone, clothing, gasoline, food, books, magazines, newspapers, admission to museums, theaters, amusement venues, plane fare, hotel rooms, restaurants, etc., etc.

And while a man's life span may be less than a woman's, that man usually goes into retirement with more money and less of a chance of outliving his income.

[RagsTTiger]

Lin, SOS, Same of Stuff" "I'm a minority, I'm put upon, yada, yada, yada." Let's start playing Helen Reddy music and apply for NOW cards. People are now reduced to politically correct numbers instead of valuing a person's worth to their employer. In today's right sizing movement, note that white males are most often displaced to maintain quotas. The same can be said for hiring inequities, as demonstrated by the recent New Haven Fire Department discrimination suit.

Women are not a minority, they are the majority! Males are more fragile (male infants are less likely to survive their first year, and a man's expected lifespan is less than a woman's). Many medical theorists believe a slightly higher conception rate of males is nature's way of evening out the balance.

[Lin Young]

addendum: I hope my last comment didn't make me sound like I liked Lou Dobbs, I couldn't stand the man and just turned off the set when he came on.

[Lin Young]

Hmmm. Ever notice how despite the fact that women represent 50 percent of the population we don't fill 50 percent of each category of jobs? We are just not well represented in the plum jobs.

Even more interesting, although John King is no baby at age 46, he replaced a man who was 64. We don't see many people over the age of 50 getting jobs, particularly not women.

America, home of the freely discriminated against.

[Larry]

Great choice by CNN, Dobbs turned into a liar and an angry mad-man with a personal vendetta. Time to go back to CNN.