Why Supreme Court Media Coverage Sucks [TEASER]

There has been a concerted effort by this court, by these justices, to really show that they are not partisan.

Hey, everyone, this is Leon from Fiasco and Prologue Projects.

On this premium episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are talking about the state of legal media.

The Supreme Court is covered by a mix of reporters operating under a variety of perverse incentives and analysts who are often the same people arguing before the court.

As a result, rather than checking the power of the judicial branch, the legal media often winds up defending the status quo or worse, obscuring the court's steady rightward shift.

This is 5-4, podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.

Welcome to 5-4, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have ruined our nation's plans for greatness, like tropical storms ruined Michael's plans for a tropical vacation.

That's right.

Womp, womp.

He didn't go nowhere.

Nope.

Nope.

No.

We like canceled the week of recording and we were like, Michael's going to Barbados.

No.

Nope.

But now I am going to Bermuda.

It's a good metaphor for climate change because

the extremely wealthy.

like Michael can simply plan vacations that are out of the path of tropical storms.

That's right.

So the 2020-2021 Supreme Court term has come to an end.

And with it have come calls for us to do episodes on the various terrible cases that came down.

We've done a couple of them and we will do more this summer and beyond.

But it felt more urgent to address a pressing concern.

the state of the legal media.

Yeah.

The legal media has always struggled to convey the realities of the Supreme Court and and the law generally to the public.

That's due to a combination of things from personal and institutional conflicts of interest to just sort of pure intellectual laziness.

Obviously, a big part of why we started this podcast is because we saw so few people talking about the court and the law the way that we understand it as a manifestation of political power and ideology.

Instead, they tend to provide shallow analysis that often borders on being reverential or at least deferential toward the court rather than offering anything incisive or critical.

And maybe one of the most severe instances of this phenomenon came at the end of this term when we were subjected to a deluge of articles seemingly praising the court for its ostensible moderation this term, which was news to us because,

you know, from our perspective, the last court term was about as bad as you'd expect.

The court did severe damage to voting rights, prioritized so-called religious liberty over public health and LGBT civil rights, damaged labor rights, and consistently protected the interests of wealthy financiers and corporations.

That's right.

So, when we saw article after article claiming that this term was not very conservative and that the justices all displayed unexpected moderation, we thought it would be best to have an episode that answered the question:

Why?

Why is this happening?

What the freaking heck is going on?

What is wrong with these people?

What the F, guys?

What the F?

Hey, folks, if you want to hear the rest of this episode, you're going to have to subscribe.

This episode is one of our premium Patreon-only episodes.

Membership starts at just five bucks a month.

So if you want to hear the rest, join us at patreon.com slash five fourpod.

That's five fourpod all spelled out.

Members get a bunch of stuff.

Not only do you get access to the premium episodes, but access to subscriber-only events, discounts on merch, and at the $10 a month level, you get bigger discounts on merch and membership in the incredibly rowdy 5-4 Slack.

So, again, that's patreon.com/slash 5-4pod, 5-4pod all spelled out.

Become a member today.