Scott Jennings' move to Salem Radio Network marks a strategic expansion for one of CNN’s few conservative voices who continues to challenge progressive narratives head-on. Starting July 14, Jennings will host a weekday slot from 2 to 3 PM EST—an hour likely to serve as a potent extension of his confrontational style already seen on CNN panels.
Jennings has built a reputation for dismantling left-leaning talking points with precision. His latest exchange with Christine Quinn, former speaker of the New York City Council, illustrates this pattern.
Quinn attempted to refute that Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani advocated for interfering with federal immigration enforcement. However, Jennings pointed to Mamdani’s own words, undermining her position. It’s a recurring theme in Jennings’ media presence—liberal figures make broad claims that quickly unravel under scrutiny.
This extends to Jennings calling Mamdani a communist, which prompted immediate pushback from Democrats who prefer the term “socialist.” The distinction rings hollow. The ideologies share philosophical roots and policy outcomes, and Jennings’ labeling points to broader discomfort within the Democratic Party when its more radical elements are named for what they are.
Meanwhile, President Trump secured a major media-related legal victory. CBS News, under parent company Paramount, agreed to a $16 million settlement in a lawsuit related to their “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
The case alleged misleading editing that favored Harris. The settlement underscores a changing dynamic—major networks are no longer untouchable when accused of editorial bias.
The New York Times captured internal dissent at CBS, with veteran correspondents reportedly alarmed at the implications for press freedom. But the practical effect is this: a precedent now exists for holding media companies accountable for partisan distortion. The fallout is significant. As part of the settlement, CBS agreed to publish full transcripts of future interviews with presidential candidates—an implicit admission that editing practices had crossed a line.