\n<\/p>\n
CNN regular Julie Roginsky has torn into Scott Jennings in a scathing Substack post and called out the network for continuing to give the conservative pundit a platform.<\/p>\n
The Democratic strategist published the piece on her \u201cSalty Politics\u201d newsletter on Monday (January 19), headlining the post, \u201cI\u2019m Probably About to Be Banned From CNN \u2014 But Someone Has to Say This About Scott Jennings.\u201d<\/p>\n
Roginsky, who frequently appears on CNN as a panelist, including appearances alongside Jennings on CNN\u2019s NewsNight<\/em>, wrote, \u201cI\u2019m fairly confident that this column will get me banned from CNN\u2019s airwaves.\u201d<\/p>\n She added, \u201cCNN once sold itself as the grown-up in the room. It was the network you turned to when the stakes got real. That reputation \u2014 earned over decades \u2014 was built on restraint, seriousness, and a basic respect for viewers. Which is why CNN\u2019s continued reliance on Scott Jennings is not just baffling, but corrosive to its brand.\u201d<\/p>\n Roginsky went on to say the issue isn\u2019t that Jennings is a conservative or a Republican. \u201cThe problem is how he behaves, what he contributes, and what his presence signals about what CNN now tolerates,\u201d she stated.<\/p>\n \u201cOn air, Jennings does not debate; he blathers. He talks over women with particular frequency, interrupts relentlessly, and treats panel discussions as contests of volume and obstinacy, rather than as exchanges of ideas,\u201d she continued, noting that Jennings \u201cmugs to the camera,\u201d \u201crolls his eyes,\u201d and calls \u201cany fact he does not like a lie.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt is performative obstruction \u2014 the cable news equivalent of flipping the board when you\u2019re losing the game,\u201d Roginsky added.<\/p>\n The piece then took a more personal turn, with Roginsky writing, \u201cJennings 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.\u201d<\/p>\n She said he does the same thing now, claiming, \u201cHe selectively edits clips to make it look like he \u201cowned\u201d whomever he was debating, too chickens*** to post the whole segment that would expose the truth.\u201d<\/p>\n Roginsky also criticized CNN, writing, \u201cCNN 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.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhat 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?\u201d she asked.<\/p>\n Roginsky later shared the link to her Substack article on X, writing, \u201cI think Scott Jennings is extra hurt because this is going pretty viral tonight.\u201d<\/p>\n You can read Roginsky\u2019s full attack on Jennings here.<\/p>\n Read the latest entertainment news on TV Insider.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n