Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky is a frequent panelist on CNN, and she’s had quite enough of a fellow panelist on the network.
In a Substack post today, Roginsky lit into both CNN and conservative panelist Scott Jennings, noting that in doing so, she may well be banned from the network.
As Roginsky explains, Jennings is an inveterate liar, and that’s not exactly the sort of person a news channel should employ.
“Jennings’ relationship with the truth is, at best, optional. Viewers are routinely treated to assertions that collapse under minimal scrutiny, talking points that are repeated even after being challenged, and claims that rely more on confidence than evidence. CNN once prided itself on fact-checking in real time. Now it often lets falsehoods linger in the air, unanswered, as long as they are delivered with sufficient bluster,” Roginsky rightly observes.
And then Roginsky gets right to the point: Jennings acts like a child.
“Jennings is also an insecure little boy, the kind of teenager who sat home alone on a Saturday night cutting and pasting photographs of himself alongside girls who would never give him the time of day to make it appear that he had a robust social life. That is essentially what he does every time he goes on air. He selectively edits clips to make it look like he “owned” whomever he was debating, too chickenshit to post the whole segment that would expose the truth. Aside from his collection of mouth-breathing Twitter acolytes, no one buys it.”
All of this leads Roginsky to conclude that CNN needs to decide if keeping Jennings is worth the damage to their reputation.
“CNN should ask itself a simple question: what is Scott Jennings adding that could not be accomplished by any number of conservative analysts who are capable of making arguments without bad faith theatrics?”
“There was a time when CNN understood that. There was a time when having access to CNN’s air meant that you were expected to argue in good faith, respect your colleagues, and engage with reality as it exists, not as your talking points demand. Scott Jennings is a repudiation of that tradition.”
In other words, CNN has to decide if they want a be serious network. If not, viewers will look elsewhere for their news.
“CNN’s legacy is not guaranteed. It is something the network either honors or squanders every day. Keeping Jennings as a fixture is not neutrality. It is a choice — a choice to debase discourse, excuse bad behavior, and signal that being loud matters more than being right.”
“CNN can do better. The question is whether it still wants to.”
Why does CNN keep Jennings around? Because he’s good for controversy and ratings? If those are the reasons, then they might just as well rebrand themselves as Fox News Lite.
