Excerpt from an essay I wrote on Judge Judy

by **Hobb** Mon 6 Jul 2015 - 18:04

{I wrote this in 2000 just before Reality TV truly exploded in the post-911 madhouse. I would argue that the current breed of 'poverty porn' was always inherent in modern Reality TV it just took time for our culture to degenerate enough to allow it to be aired.}

[...]

Yet, even if fictional, this steady diet of crime and punishment has not been without effect either, again quoting the 1976 Ontario Royal Commission: "Heavy TV viewers are more likely to overestimate the proportion of the general population involved in police work. They are more likely to overestimate the danger of their own neighbourhood. They are more likely to a have a sense of fear about daily life. They are more likely to overestimate the probability of being involved in a violent crime".[7] If anything, these effects have more likely increased from 1976 to present, as modern shows' focus more on the courts and legal systems. While the original People's Court TV show is probably the direct predecessor of 'judge shows', it was probably the more recent show COPS, with its reality-based format, which re-sparked interest not only in 'judge shows', but also the next trend to be examined: reality game shows.

The genre I have dubbed 'reality game shows' is still such a recent pop phenomena (at least in North America) that no label has stuck to it. The suggestions made so far, 'predicament TV', 'lab rat TV', 'voyeur vision', could all be applied to 'judge shows', and when the shows are examined in this light a new view of these shows is seen. From this perspective the 'court trials' are seen for what they are: brutal game shows.

Despite any claims by these programs to show how the wheels of justice turn, it is only the whim of the judge and, occasionally, the audiences' reaction to you, which determines your chances of victory. Well-dressed sophists walk out with cash settlements, the rest end-up 'losing'. One website publishes an article on how to win over/fool Judge Judy. I will list their seven tips to show the game show's implicit rules. They are:

1) Write a spell-checked pre-trial response letter.
2) Wear nice clothes.
3) Bring witnesses (Judy doesn't read affidavits)
4) Submit and Behave Well.
5) Don't be a deadbeat Dad or Mom.
6) Don't Explain, Answer
7) Don't lie, but if you do, lie well.[8]

In other words the trial is judged on 'proper' appearances, submissive rhetoric and popularity – some of the base social factors that laws of the modern legal system are suppose to mitigate. These criteria are the new norm for succeeding in reality game shows as domination/submission conflicts and crude popularity contests become the games.

This new mix is described by a recent Starweek article which read, "deprivation plus personality conflicts equals bizarro entertainment (sic)...as cash is rewarded to the last person not to voted out".[9] The article is helpfully in formulating the elements of this genre yet, can only weakly explain the appeal of this mix as 'bizarro entertainment', but we can attempt to do better. The first element, artificial deprivation, seems only vaguely entertaining and not applicable to 'judge shows'. Yet, all the contestants of the judge show are there because of the artificial deprivation of capitalism. Most of those who appear in the court are either in economic poverty or in desperate fear of poverty, as these people are the only ones desperate enough to be abused in order to save some money, much less need to go to court over a few hundred dollars.

Without a lower economic-class, the judge shows would have no one to appear on it to be nationally humiliated. Judge shows revolve around the simple humiliation of 'disrespectful' (desperate) lower-class people being watched by 'proper' lower and middle class people. The implicit message being: Never become so poor you end up on this show. In this perspective, the artificial deprivation caused by being flown to a desert island, as in the Survivor game show, is simply a crude replication of the artificial deprivation of the demands of the everyday capitalistic system that judge shows already use. The genius of Survivor is that it can play in prime time because it no longer dirties the viewers' hands with real economic deprivation. In reality game shows the injustices of capitalism are not injustice, but rather prerequisites for 'entertainment'.

The next element of these game shows is personality conflicts caused by artificial deprivation. Again capitalistic logic is converted into a marketable commodity: artificial deprivation equals desperate competition equals basest human emotions equals 'blockbuster entertainment'. While other reality game shows reify this conflict to make it easier to watch, judge shows utilize the real thing for its content. Watching two former friends fight each other over a $200 loan in front of an abusive judge/game show host could be described as 'entertainment' in a corruptly capitalistic society. Unable to wait for these conflicts to 'naturally' degenerate to the domination/submission level over a few weeks, judge shows simply place an abusive dominator as the star of the show and the 'contestants' must follow suit. At this level the 'dominance hierarchies' (as biologists call them) that humanity has spent centuries trying to curb is gleefully reinstated. The mean spirited, superficial anal-retentatives glide to the front, everyone else goes to their proper pecking order. The new method of determining the better human is the shallowest of popularity contests.

This popularity contest is the final distinguishing element of the reality game show. Whether winning over judges, fellow contestants or home audiences, one element is the key - appearance. The ideals of impartial justice and liberal democracy are parodied daily by both current politics and reality game shows, as the illusion of appearance is trumpeted as the real thing with a knowing wink.

Perhaps the best thing that can be said about the judge shows in this regard is the randomness of arbitrary cruelty by the judges. This allows even the most proper of plaintiffs a short tongue-lashing for little reason. Here a fan of Judge Judy writes, "[she] is extremely unpredictable. She can turn on you in a moments notice and make a complete ass out of you on national television". The brutal equality of an angry alcoholic parent who strikes the obedient child as well as the disrespectful one.

Beyond those specific elements 'reality game shows' have all the elements of both 'reality' programming and normal game shows. For brevity sakes only one element from each category will be touched on: monetary prizes (game shows) and the defining of the real (reality programming). As discussed above, judge shows are generally proletariat 'reality game shows' while prime-time 'reality game shows' are more bourgeois, this divide is again reflected in the monetary prizes. A quick comparison of shows tells us all the relevant information:

a) Answer trivia/trivial questions on 'Who wants to be a Millionaire" - win $1,000,000,00;
b) spend a month on a desert island and run occasional obstacle courses for 'Survivor' -win $500,000;
c) live a life of borderline poverty, have infidelity exposed on national TV, witness your former spouse reduced to tears while suffering repeated verbal abuse from both you and the judge, and receive favourable case settlement on Divorce Court - 'win' a $500 dollar appearance fee and $2000 of the marital assets.

The gulf between the amounts awarded is obscene, but so is a culture that consumes humiliation as entertainment.

The final element of 'reality game shows' to be discussed is also the most insidious, for all the horrors of the above (artificial deprivation, enforced competition, crude ego conflicts, popularity equaling democracy) are presented as 'real'. Every use of the term 'real' makes an ontological claim, which is a powerful act. When the ontological claim is made by a powerful consensus forming technology, which is seen as a neutral source of information by the general populous, then the act should be seen as a very powerful, dangerous act. If the origin of that claim is a corporate capitalistic entity (which controls all use of the powerful consensus forming technology) and their claims consists of making 'real' only the worst elements of capitalism - then the act should be seen as a powerful, dangerous, aggressively manipulative, destructively self-serving, and ultimately nihilistic act. The ontological shift of the 'real' applying to solely that which is cruel, mercenary, selfish and brutal is one which will have terrible repercussions. The term 'real' appears in either the opening title or promotional material for every judge show studied. As Judy Judge promotes itself as, "REAL cases with REAL consequences".

Depending on the popularity of the second generation of 'reality game shows' (Survivor 2, Big Brother, Mole), the face of television programming might change drastically. "If Big Brother lands with a wallop, TV is sure to take a decisive turn in this direction", writes Edwin Agawin, "it might even be the tectonic plates of TV are shifting, with these new game/peep/thrill shows marking the beginning of the end for the old radio-based forms of serial comedy and drama".[10] Currently Big Brother has had poor ratings so far, despite major advertising and attempts to stir controversy but the low costs of producing ‘reality game shows’ means corporations may continue to flog this format a bit longer. A Newsweek article on Big Brother's failure cited the ugliness and boorishness of the participants as the major problem, suggesting that more violence and sex and less 'realism' might help the show. And so, television stoops to lower and lower levels.

If ‘reality game shows’ prove successful, the old media formula of 'like producing like' will take hold and a glut of these shows will flood the airways. Eventually all pretense of story or setting will disappear. Multi-millionaires will simply throw dollar bills on the ground and chuckle as their camera crew rushes in to film desperate humans fighting each other for a handful. The rest of us will tune in each night to watch these spectacles and chuckle too. The money will be snatched by sneakiest, vainest and meanest among us. This will be called 'reality' and when the television set is turned off - so we can wake up early to work- this is what people will assume the world is like. The corporate job market will further brim with those eager to serve the rich. North American children may be raised believing that to fight for scraps from the master's table is both entertainment and their role in life.

[Here is a good infographic explaining the mechanics of the Judge Judy show]