Renee Good is not a talking point. But for Scott Jennings and CNN, a fatal shooting in Minneapolis is just another opportunity to 'both sides' the indefensible.
Watching the video of Renee Good being murdered gutted me. There was absolutely zero excuse for the agent to pull his gun, let alone shoot her. It's 💯 murdered and needs to be treated that way.
The way CNN reports things is worse than Fox News because at least with Fox you know that they are all about Trump. With CNN, there's still trust there. It's disgusting.
I can't even stomach watching Jennings. You can see the devious wheels turning as he prepares his next specious comment. He adds nothing of value to any discussion, but his impact in molding perceptions is real and poisonous.
I've long awaited someone to call out the master troll Scott Jennings so thanks Kristoffer for finally bringing this to light...and also actively being involved in the comment section and lends strength to the points in the column: that basically this guy is a conservative neo Nazi supporting the Christian Nationalist Movement (“We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity. Our movement is Christian.” Adolph Hitler 1928) Hermann Göring and Joseph Goebbels would be proud
CNN has this history of both side-ism through the last decade at least but as journalists have pointed out over the last 2y this is a time when that editorial stance is just plain wrong morally and has no respect of the truth
Cheeto and his sycophants like Jennings know the game they're playing just as the Nazis knew in the 1930's but columns like yours sheds light on the propaganda being spread Thanks goodness for the internet in creating dialogue that is so meaningful in this era where truth has become virtually meaningless with this NeoNazi party presently in control of our government CNN should be chagrined for keeping Jennings hanging around but the network has lost any credibility and decency it used to have
It's time for Americans who value the truth to call for a boycott of CNN until they fire Jennings(it worked with Disney and Kimmel) It will send a message to mainstream media that truth counts and that Fox propaganda won't be tolerated Call it for what it is....naming it is the first step Time to switch channels to MS NOW
Love your writing. There are way too many of the guys with “the kind of confidence you only develop when you never have to pay a price for anything you say.” Condolences to anyone who has to watch corporate media swill. I SALUTE YOU. Thank you for making me laugh at “watching CNN let him talk while my brain tries to escape my skull like it’s filing a restraining order against my television”. Seek Truth is one of the three pillars of my personal mission statement. The other two are find Peace and be Love.
Jane — I’m sorry about that. I genuinely wish I could just tell you exactly what the link was, too, but I use so many hyperlinks across my articles that it’s not always possible to keep track of which specific one got disabled or flagged after the fact. Sometimes the platform just nukes a link and doesn’t give a clear explanation, and then I’m stuck trying to reverse-engineer what changed.
Outstanding piece. It is about platforming and false equivalences. Host the debate and then act surprised when the debate turns toxic because you picked zealots to participate.
Mike — I hear you. And that’s exactly why I don’t treat Jennings like he’s “just another viewpoint.” He’s not there to add perspective; he’s there to contaminate the conversation and then act offended when people point out the smell.
CNN keeps selling it as “balance,” but it’s not balance when one side is arguing in good faith and the other side is doing credibility cosplay—throwing out spin, smirking through rebuttals, and counting on the format to protect him from consequences.
So yeah: you’re right. At some point you stop politely debating the arsonist and you start asking why the network keeps handing him matches.
Agree 1000%. And you know what? Scott Jennings is impervious to criticism. He likes it. He thrives on it. Apparently so does CNN - the show has consistently good ratings. Why David Axelrod continues to subject himself to it, I don't know. He professes "love" for Jennings and then ever so graciously takes him apart. The good news is Jennings had asked for his own show and didn't get it. The bad news is that as long as the ratings hold up and talent like Axelrod doesn't walk, here we are...
Tony — you’re exactly right. Jennings isn’t “misunderstood” or “accidentally grating.” He’s impervious to criticism because the criticism is the point. The format rewards him: he says something slick and dishonest with total confidence, CNN gets the conflict, and everyone else burns time trying to clean up the mess like it’s a normal debate instead of a performance.
And your Axelrod point is the one that keeps nagging at me. If you’re a serious person, why keep volunteering for a segment designed to turn you into the “reasonable adult” foil while the other guy gets to play reality with house rules? As long as talented people keep showing up to be the straight man in that routine, CNN can pretend the whole thing is “balance” instead of what it is: oxygen journalism dressed up as credibility.
Also: Jennings asking for his own show and not getting it is hilarious — because it confirms what we already know. CNN doesn’t need him to be smart, they need him to be useful. The problem is: “useful” still does damage.
And this is why I don’t tiptoe around it. I’m past the polite euphemisms. Jennings is a piece of shit, and CNN keeps giving him a chair because his role isn’t analysis — it’s sabotage with a smirk.
I have gone beyond changing the channel when Scott Jennings comes on. I quit watching CNN a year ago because of him. I watch MS Now. At one point I read that he might step into Charlies Kirk role. Has anyone else read that anywhere?
Rebecca — you’re not alone. A lot of people hit the same wall: it’s not even “changing the channel when he comes on” anymore, it’s turning the whole network off because you get tired of watching CNN hand a bad-faith operator a daily credibility costume.
On the Charlie Kirk question: I’ve seen the chatter and the “wouldn’t it be wild if…” speculation, but I haven’t seen anything solid enough that I’d treat it as confirmed. What I do think is real, though, is the lane he’s already in — the clean-cut pipeline from “network pundit” to full-time right-wing influencer content. That pivot is basically a career move now, not a conspiracy.
If you come across a credible link/source on the Kirk thing, drop it — I’ll gladly look at it.
Excellent article. Scott Jennings is nauseating, smug, condescending and I get a visceral physical reaction whenever I see him. His smirk is so disgusting. Your article described him perfectly. CNN has really become unwatchable.
VermontLouise — I completely get what you mean. There are some people whose whole on-air presence is basically a smirk with a microphone, and Jennings is one of them.
What makes him so corrosive isn’t just that he’s conservative — it’s that he’s confidently wrong on purpose, and CNN keeps dressing it up as “balance,” like misinformation becomes journalism if you put it in a blazer and give it a chyron. That’s not debate. That’s oxygen journalism: keep the heat on, keep the conflict alive, and pretend it’s news.
And you’re right — once you notice how much of the format rewards smug certainty over accuracy, CNN becomes hard to watch without feeling like you’re being played.
Journalistic statements that there are two sides of the murder of the young woman are once again proof that they are complicit in the Big Lie, or rather the Big Flim Flam being inflicted on us by this administration. The video is clear as to what happened. Photos are also clear that the locals are not THE dangerous paid agitators. One of the theories that the Viet Nam war ended was that TV brought the war home. Don't know if that is true, but the phone cameras and internet sharing are hopefully going to help stop this one.
CNN (and too many outlets like it) keeps treating deadly state violence like it’s a “two sides” debate instead of what it is: a real human being dead, and a federal agency immediately rushing out a narrative to justify it. That “we can’t possibly know what happened” posture isn’t neutrality — it’s cover. It’s credibility cosplay for institutions that already know how this movie ends.
And I agree with you about the power of cameras. Whatever people believe politically, video has changed the equation because it forces the public to judge reality with their own eyes instead of relying on whatever the first official press release says. That’s why some people hate phones and “citizen footage” so much — it takes away their ability to control the story.
Your point about TV and Vietnam is also a real conversation historians have had for decades: once the war was in America’s living rooms, it got harder to keep selling the public a clean, heroic narrative. Whether it’s the reason the war turned, it absolutely mattered. And now the same dynamic is hitting domestic politics: the state can still do harm, but it can’t always do it quietly anymore.
That’s why transparency and accountability aren’t “anti-law enforcement” — they’re the minimum requirement for a democracy.
I’m glad I don’t know who (what) scott is. I haven’t ever watched CNN and I lived in Atlanta when it started. Worked at the Gradies just down the street. That was back when we all hated Ted Turner. Some people even felt sorry for Jane (who I adore) because of Ted.
Scott Jennings is CNN’s resident “professional Republican,” the guy they keep booking to play credibility cosplay—delivering talking points with the confidence of a man who’s never been inconvenienced by a fact check. He’s not there to debate; he’s there to gum up the conversation and make bad-faith sound like “balance.”
Also: Atlanta when CNN started + Grady just down the street? That’s an era. And you’re right — back when we all hated Ted Turner, at least the network still had a sense of purpose. Now it’s just oxygen journalism: keep the outrage alive, keep the segment moving, and call it news.
Unfortunately when you get people like Mr Jennings now you have opinion pieces NOT Truth. And the fact that CNN should still be credible news is fading and it's sad that it is. It used to be unbiased reporting it is no longer.
P J — I agree. What CNN is doing with Jennings isn’t “opinion.” It’s putting a professional partisan on air who too often states things as fact that he knows aren’t true — and then the network wraps it in the aesthetic of credibility and calls it “balance.”
That’s what makes him so corrosive: he doesn’t just spin — he’ll posit outright lies as truth, with full confidence, because the format rewards certainty more than accuracy.
And yes, eventually this kind of routine tends to meet a wall. The only language some networks seem to understand is legal exposure. Fox didn’t get rid of Tucker because they found religion — they got rid of him after the cost of the recklessness became impossible to ignore. If CNN keeps platforming actual-malice-style behavior, it’s only a matter of time before someone drags them into court and forces accountability the hard way.
I truly hope so. I was just posting a comment on Adam Kinzinger's page that I'm so tired of the deciding what happened before they investigate. But with the leader of the FBI being on the side of the administration chances are pretty good it will come out that Rene wasn't who she truly was and the ICE agent won't be responsible for what happened. Perhaps he will be reassigned but with the Barbie at the helm and her sidekick Mr Homan by her side she will stick with her side of the story rather than the truth that's in the video.
“Fox sells ideology. CNN sells the appearance of neutrality while letting bad faith sit in the serious chair.” And this makes CNN much more dangerous to the health of our democracy than Fox. Excellent post.
John — thank you. And yes, that’s exactly the danger: Fox is openly ideological, so people at least know what they’re buying. CNN too often sells the feeling of neutrality while handing bad faith the “serious chair,” and that’s how propaganda gets smuggled into the mainstream with a suit and a chyron.
I really appreciate you pulling that line out — that’s the core of it.
Pat — thank you. I really appreciate you reading it and saying that.
And yes, the “IQ” line is exactly what makes Jennings so toxic: it’s not analysis, it’s humiliation dressed up as “debate.” It’s the kind of thing that relies on an audience being numb enough to mistake cruelty for intelligence.
I’m grateful you took the time to sit with the piece — and I’m glad it landed, even if the subject matter is gut-wrenching.
Arne — I hear you. “ICE-involved shooting” is the kind of antiseptic phrase people use when they want the story to feel less brutal than it is.
The reason I’m careful with the exact word murder is purely legal/technical for journalistic purposes — that determination is made in court. But morally? I’m with you: a woman is dead, an ICE agent is accused of killing her, and the reflex to soften it with passive language is part of the same narrative laundering I’m calling out in the piece.
And the other ugly part is what you hinted at earlier: MAGA-world is already trying to other her in death because she was in a relationship with another woman. These people have no class and no shame — they can’t even let a murdered mother rest without turning it into culture-war sludge.
Renee Good deserved the truth, and she deserved justice.
Watching the video of Renee Good being murdered gutted me. There was absolutely zero excuse for the agent to pull his gun, let alone shoot her. It's 💯 murdered and needs to be treated that way.
The way CNN reports things is worse than Fox News because at least with Fox you know that they are all about Trump. With CNN, there's still trust there. It's disgusting.
How anyone can give Scott J any air time is beyond me. He is a parody unto himself.
I can't even stomach watching Jennings. You can see the devious wheels turning as he prepares his next specious comment. He adds nothing of value to any discussion, but his impact in molding perceptions is real and poisonous.
Why Does CNN Tolerate Jennings?
I've long awaited someone to call out the master troll Scott Jennings so thanks Kristoffer for finally bringing this to light...and also actively being involved in the comment section and lends strength to the points in the column: that basically this guy is a conservative neo Nazi supporting the Christian Nationalist Movement (“We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity. Our movement is Christian.” Adolph Hitler 1928) Hermann Göring and Joseph Goebbels would be proud
CNN has this history of both side-ism through the last decade at least but as journalists have pointed out over the last 2y this is a time when that editorial stance is just plain wrong morally and has no respect of the truth
Cheeto and his sycophants like Jennings know the game they're playing just as the Nazis knew in the 1930's but columns like yours sheds light on the propaganda being spread Thanks goodness for the internet in creating dialogue that is so meaningful in this era where truth has become virtually meaningless with this NeoNazi party presently in control of our government CNN should be chagrined for keeping Jennings hanging around but the network has lost any credibility and decency it used to have
It's time for Americans who value the truth to call for a boycott of CNN until they fire Jennings(it worked with Disney and Kimmel) It will send a message to mainstream media that truth counts and that Fox propaganda won't be tolerated Call it for what it is....naming it is the first step Time to switch channels to MS NOW
Love your writing. There are way too many of the guys with “the kind of confidence you only develop when you never have to pay a price for anything you say.” Condolences to anyone who has to watch corporate media swill. I SALUTE YOU. Thank you for making me laugh at “watching CNN let him talk while my brain tries to escape my skull like it’s filing a restraining order against my television”. Seek Truth is one of the three pillars of my personal mission statement. The other two are find Peace and be Love.
The link to Representatives did not work for me
Jane — I’m sorry about that. I genuinely wish I could just tell you exactly what the link was, too, but I use so many hyperlinks across my articles that it’s not always possible to keep track of which specific one got disabled or flagged after the fact. Sometimes the platform just nukes a link and doesn’t give a clear explanation, and then I’m stuck trying to reverse-engineer what changed.
Thank you! That’s nice of you to write back!
Outstanding piece. It is about platforming and false equivalences. Host the debate and then act surprised when the debate turns toxic because you picked zealots to participate.
Mike — I hear you. And that’s exactly why I don’t treat Jennings like he’s “just another viewpoint.” He’s not there to add perspective; he’s there to contaminate the conversation and then act offended when people point out the smell.
CNN keeps selling it as “balance,” but it’s not balance when one side is arguing in good faith and the other side is doing credibility cosplay—throwing out spin, smirking through rebuttals, and counting on the format to protect him from consequences.
So yeah: you’re right. At some point you stop politely debating the arsonist and you start asking why the network keeps handing him matches.
Agree 1000%. And you know what? Scott Jennings is impervious to criticism. He likes it. He thrives on it. Apparently so does CNN - the show has consistently good ratings. Why David Axelrod continues to subject himself to it, I don't know. He professes "love" for Jennings and then ever so graciously takes him apart. The good news is Jennings had asked for his own show and didn't get it. The bad news is that as long as the ratings hold up and talent like Axelrod doesn't walk, here we are...
Tony — you’re exactly right. Jennings isn’t “misunderstood” or “accidentally grating.” He’s impervious to criticism because the criticism is the point. The format rewards him: he says something slick and dishonest with total confidence, CNN gets the conflict, and everyone else burns time trying to clean up the mess like it’s a normal debate instead of a performance.
And your Axelrod point is the one that keeps nagging at me. If you’re a serious person, why keep volunteering for a segment designed to turn you into the “reasonable adult” foil while the other guy gets to play reality with house rules? As long as talented people keep showing up to be the straight man in that routine, CNN can pretend the whole thing is “balance” instead of what it is: oxygen journalism dressed up as credibility.
Also: Jennings asking for his own show and not getting it is hilarious — because it confirms what we already know. CNN doesn’t need him to be smart, they need him to be useful. The problem is: “useful” still does damage.
And this is why I don’t tiptoe around it. I’m past the polite euphemisms. Jennings is a piece of shit, and CNN keeps giving him a chair because his role isn’t analysis — it’s sabotage with a smirk.
I have gone beyond changing the channel when Scott Jennings comes on. I quit watching CNN a year ago because of him. I watch MS Now. At one point I read that he might step into Charlies Kirk role. Has anyone else read that anywhere?
Rebecca — you’re not alone. A lot of people hit the same wall: it’s not even “changing the channel when he comes on” anymore, it’s turning the whole network off because you get tired of watching CNN hand a bad-faith operator a daily credibility costume.
On the Charlie Kirk question: I’ve seen the chatter and the “wouldn’t it be wild if…” speculation, but I haven’t seen anything solid enough that I’d treat it as confirmed. What I do think is real, though, is the lane he’s already in — the clean-cut pipeline from “network pundit” to full-time right-wing influencer content. That pivot is basically a career move now, not a conspiracy.
If you come across a credible link/source on the Kirk thing, drop it — I’ll gladly look at it.
Excellent article. Scott Jennings is nauseating, smug, condescending and I get a visceral physical reaction whenever I see him. His smirk is so disgusting. Your article described him perfectly. CNN has really become unwatchable.
VermontLouise — I completely get what you mean. There are some people whose whole on-air presence is basically a smirk with a microphone, and Jennings is one of them.
What makes him so corrosive isn’t just that he’s conservative — it’s that he’s confidently wrong on purpose, and CNN keeps dressing it up as “balance,” like misinformation becomes journalism if you put it in a blazer and give it a chyron. That’s not debate. That’s oxygen journalism: keep the heat on, keep the conflict alive, and pretend it’s news.
And you’re right — once you notice how much of the format rewards smug certainty over accuracy, CNN becomes hard to watch without feeling like you’re being played.
Journalistic statements that there are two sides of the murder of the young woman are once again proof that they are complicit in the Big Lie, or rather the Big Flim Flam being inflicted on us by this administration. The video is clear as to what happened. Photos are also clear that the locals are not THE dangerous paid agitators. One of the theories that the Viet Nam war ended was that TV brought the war home. Don't know if that is true, but the phone cameras and internet sharing are hopefully going to help stop this one.
Patricia — yes. This is exactly the problem.
CNN (and too many outlets like it) keeps treating deadly state violence like it’s a “two sides” debate instead of what it is: a real human being dead, and a federal agency immediately rushing out a narrative to justify it. That “we can’t possibly know what happened” posture isn’t neutrality — it’s cover. It’s credibility cosplay for institutions that already know how this movie ends.
And I agree with you about the power of cameras. Whatever people believe politically, video has changed the equation because it forces the public to judge reality with their own eyes instead of relying on whatever the first official press release says. That’s why some people hate phones and “citizen footage” so much — it takes away their ability to control the story.
Your point about TV and Vietnam is also a real conversation historians have had for decades: once the war was in America’s living rooms, it got harder to keep selling the public a clean, heroic narrative. Whether it’s the reason the war turned, it absolutely mattered. And now the same dynamic is hitting domestic politics: the state can still do harm, but it can’t always do it quietly anymore.
That’s why transparency and accountability aren’t “anti-law enforcement” — they’re the minimum requirement for a democracy.
I’m glad I don’t know who (what) scott is. I haven’t ever watched CNN and I lived in Atlanta when it started. Worked at the Gradies just down the street. That was back when we all hated Ted Turner. Some people even felt sorry for Jane (who I adore) because of Ted.
Ma — honestly? Stay blessed. 😂
Scott Jennings is CNN’s resident “professional Republican,” the guy they keep booking to play credibility cosplay—delivering talking points with the confidence of a man who’s never been inconvenienced by a fact check. He’s not there to debate; he’s there to gum up the conversation and make bad-faith sound like “balance.”
Also: Atlanta when CNN started + Grady just down the street? That’s an era. And you’re right — back when we all hated Ted Turner, at least the network still had a sense of purpose. Now it’s just oxygen journalism: keep the outrage alive, keep the segment moving, and call it news.
And yes — Justice for Jane. Always. 👑
Unfortunately when you get people like Mr Jennings now you have opinion pieces NOT Truth. And the fact that CNN should still be credible news is fading and it's sad that it is. It used to be unbiased reporting it is no longer.
P J — I agree. What CNN is doing with Jennings isn’t “opinion.” It’s putting a professional partisan on air who too often states things as fact that he knows aren’t true — and then the network wraps it in the aesthetic of credibility and calls it “balance.”
That’s what makes him so corrosive: he doesn’t just spin — he’ll posit outright lies as truth, with full confidence, because the format rewards certainty more than accuracy.
And yes, eventually this kind of routine tends to meet a wall. The only language some networks seem to understand is legal exposure. Fox didn’t get rid of Tucker because they found religion — they got rid of him after the cost of the recklessness became impossible to ignore. If CNN keeps platforming actual-malice-style behavior, it’s only a matter of time before someone drags them into court and forces accountability the hard way.
I truly hope so. I was just posting a comment on Adam Kinzinger's page that I'm so tired of the deciding what happened before they investigate. But with the leader of the FBI being on the side of the administration chances are pretty good it will come out that Rene wasn't who she truly was and the ICE agent won't be responsible for what happened. Perhaps he will be reassigned but with the Barbie at the helm and her sidekick Mr Homan by her side she will stick with her side of the story rather than the truth that's in the video.
“Fox sells ideology. CNN sells the appearance of neutrality while letting bad faith sit in the serious chair.” And this makes CNN much more dangerous to the health of our democracy than Fox. Excellent post.
John — thank you. And yes, that’s exactly the danger: Fox is openly ideological, so people at least know what they’re buying. CNN too often sells the feeling of neutrality while handing bad faith the “serious chair,” and that’s how propaganda gets smuggled into the mainstream with a suit and a chyron.
I really appreciate you pulling that line out — that’s the core of it.
Stunning essay .. thank you very much for writing this ... it is all gut-wrenching.
I didn't even know about the 'IQ' thing -- wow ... what a heartbreaker.
Pat — thank you. I really appreciate you reading it and saying that.
And yes, the “IQ” line is exactly what makes Jennings so toxic: it’s not analysis, it’s humiliation dressed up as “debate.” It’s the kind of thing that relies on an audience being numb enough to mistake cruelty for intelligence.
I’m grateful you took the time to sit with the piece — and I’m glad it landed, even if the subject matter is gut-wrenching.
Why use the phrase "ice-involved shooting"? It was cold-blooded murder. Call it what it is. It was MURDER!
Arne — I hear you. “ICE-involved shooting” is the kind of antiseptic phrase people use when they want the story to feel less brutal than it is.
The reason I’m careful with the exact word murder is purely legal/technical for journalistic purposes — that determination is made in court. But morally? I’m with you: a woman is dead, an ICE agent is accused of killing her, and the reflex to soften it with passive language is part of the same narrative laundering I’m calling out in the piece.
And the other ugly part is what you hinted at earlier: MAGA-world is already trying to other her in death because she was in a relationship with another woman. These people have no class and no shame — they can’t even let a murdered mother rest without turning it into culture-war sludge.
Renee Good deserved the truth, and she deserved justice.