Posted in: Paramount+, TV | Tagged: Criminal Minds

Criminal Minds: Paget Brewster Posts Apology: "Last Night, I Sucked"

On Sunday afternoon, Criminal Minds: Evolution star Paget Brewster apologized to a writer for her online reaction to their opinion piece.

UPDATE (3:11 PM ET): As the backlash to the Criminal Minds: Evolution star's over-the-top reaction to ScreenRant writer Shealynn Scott's opinion piece questioning whether the move to streaming and the reduced number of episodes are impacting the series continued to grow, Paget Brewster returned to social media to post an apology (and remove the post). "Hi guys, I was mean to Shealyn Scott [Ed. Note: misspelling] last night and I profoundly regret it. Shame on me for insulting a human being for doing their job. I'm very sorry, Shealyn. And I'm sorry to those who follow me that you saw me behave like that. Turns out, last night, I sucked."

Here's a look at what Bewster had to share in response to the backlash to her comments from Saturday night, followed by our original report/editorial on the matter from earlier today:

Hi guys, I was mean to Shealyn Scott last night and I profoundly regret it. Shame on me for insulting a human being for doing their job. I'm very sorry, Shealyn. And I'm sorry to those who follow me that you saw me behave like that. Turns out, last night, I sucked.

— paget brewster (@pagetpaget) June 21, 2026

I have no idea who Shealynn Scott is. Well, that's not quite true. I do know a few things about Scott. I know that they write for ScreenRant, a pop culture website. I know that they're clearly a fan of the "Criminal Minds" franchise. I know that they're clearly not a fan of how the show's move to Paramount+ and the serious drop in the number of episodes per season have impacted the show (now titled "Criminal Minds: Evolution"). And I know that they definitely didn't deserve the toxic response they received from series star Paget Brewster. "Hello critic Shealynn Scott," Brewster began her response to Scott's piece (which you can check out for yourselves here). "You're young. You don't know that bad pics and bad reviews can lead to 350 people losing their jobs. Sell vintage. Work at a shelter. Do something better than what you do now. Because right now you suck."

Setting aside the ageist and overall condescending tone of the response, I wanted to push back on a few things, as someone who's been on the receiving end of an attack from someone associated with a show we covered who clearly didn't read my piece and was seemingly working off of social media reactions:

Scott's Opinion Piece Was Constructive Criticism – Not a Hit Piece: I will be the first one to say that there can be some shitty coverage out there. Cheap,  third-rate clickbait headlines. Shady "sources" pimping whackjob theories as facts. Questionable interpretations of quotes to spin an article a certain way. But Scott's piece was the complete opposite, making solid "bigger picture" points about how "Criminal Minds" has been affected by its move from network television (and its larger episode counts) to streaming (where double-digit episode counts in a season are rare). I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with Scott's arguments – that's not the point. The point is that Scott did what actors, directors, writers, executive producers, and others associated with television shows claim they want: started an open, honest, and constructive conversation. If anyone was being "attacked" (and I'm using that word loosely), it would be studios/streamers for slashing budgets and cutting episode counts.

I love television. And I think that can be said of pretty much anyone who is masochistic enough to write about it on a regular basis. But loving it doesn't mean being a "Rah! Rah!" cheerleader for anything and everything that hits the small screen. Sometimes, that means using your voice to question or call out issues that you see. Some folks might agree with you; others might think you're full of shit. Now, imagine how much more difficult it is to criticize a show that – on a geek fan level – you still love. As someone who has Saturday Night Live and The Walking Dead in his bones, I can tell you firsthand that it can suuuuuuuck. But you do it not to tear a show down, but to hopefully make it better. That's what Scott wants through their piece – and it shows.

It's Easier to Call Out The Media Than Your Bosses: With David Ellison's Paramount Skydance about to gobble up Warner Bros. Discovery with a merger deal expected to result in a ton of layoffs and some serious slashing in production, I would like to see more writers, directors, actors, executive producers, and others within the television industry use their social media to call out the real reason why "350 people" might be "losing their jobs." To lay that kind of guilt on a writer who was doing their job responsibly well is a cheap, punching-down move that ignores the dozen or so other very real reasons why shows get canceled – reasons that have nothing to do with writers covering a show.

As For That Image…: If it were an official image from Paramount+'s press folks, that might be something to take up with them. If it wasn't an official image, then no one can begrudge anyone their right to not like how their image was used. Not to speak for Scott, and based just on my own experience, I got the sense that the writer went with Brewster because she's a main "face" of the long-running series, and chose the facial expression to match the concerns they have about the show's current structure. Again, that's just my read, for what it's worth.

Enjoyed this? Please share on social media!

Stay up-to-date and support the site by following Bleeding Cool on Google News today!