I'm Not a Judge but I Play One on TV : American Reality-Based Courtroom Television
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I'M NOT A JUDGE BUT I PLAY ONE ON TV: AMERICAN REALITY-BASED COURTROOM TELEVISION Steven Arthur Kohm B.A. (Honours) University of Winnipeg, 1997 M.A. University of Toronto, 1998 DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the School of Criminology O Steven Kohm 2004 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Fall 2004 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Steven Arthur Kohm Degree: Ph.D. Title of Dissertation: I'm Not a Judge, but I Play One on TV: American Reality-based Courtroom Television Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Dorothy Chunn Professor of Criminology Dr. John Lowman Senior Supervisor Professor of Criminology Dr. Robert Menzies Supervisor Professor of Criminology Dr. Margaret Jackson Supervisor Professor of Criminology Dr. Rick Gruneau Internal Examiner Professor of Communication Dr. Aaron Doyle External Examiner Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, Carlton University Date DefendedApproved: SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENCE The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, afid to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection. The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without the author's written permission.\ Permission for public performance, or limited permission for private scholarly use, of any multimedia materials forming part of this work, may have been granted by the author. This information may be found on the separately catalogued multimedia material and in the signed Partial Copyright Licence. The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed by this author, may be found in the original bound copy of this work, retained in the Simon Fraser University Archive. W. A. C. Bennett Library Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada ABSTRACT This thesis presents an in-depth, exploratory qualitative content analysis of American reality-based courtroom television programming. Based on a detailed examination of over 200 hours of People's Court and Judge Judy, the thesis theorizes the links between popular entertainment and public attitudes toward law, punishment and the legal system. The potential of these programs to shape popular attitudes toward the place of law in the lives of ordinary people is of particular interest here. In order to tap into the viewer's perspective, a purposive sampling of viewer comments from an Internet-based fan discussion forum was utilized. The primary method employed in analyzing the programs was a detailed textual analysis of the discourse of judges, litigants and fans. Drawing from the methodological insights of linguistic ethnographers John Conley and William O'Barr (1990, 1998) I closely analyzed the decision-making of the TV judges, the style of testimony presented by litigants and the overall morphological structure of both programs. Based on this analysis, I conclude that the two programs articulate very different models of law and justice corresponding to different socio-political orientations. People's Court presents a participatory-democraticvision of law that is grounded in liberal-legal notions of due process, individual rights and free speech, while Judge Judy offers an authoritarian vision of judgement and law centred on the moral discourses of personal responsibility, traditional family values, and harsh punishment for those who fail to learn from their past mistakes. However, while the two programs present their messages through different models of judicial process, both contribute to a reconceptualization of judgement as a source of spectacle and entertainment. I assert that reality-based courtroom TV is the leading edge of a movement toward a new culture of judgement marked by the multiplication of opportunities to judge and be judged; judgement from a distance facilitated by technology; the increasing use of judgement as a form of entertainment; and the incitement to not only 'judge for ourselves,' but to judge ourselves against the normative yardstick of those marginalized litigants who turn to the TV tribunal as a court of last resort. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following people for their assistance and support during the writing, editing and analysis that resulted in this dissertation. First and foremost, I want to acknowledge the hard work, careful editing and insightful ideas of all three members of my supervisory committee. Without their dedication and faith in my ability to pull this off, I would not have been able to achieve the results that I did. I wish to thank John for his willingness to at times work beyond his comfort zone and for his constant critical eye that made me work harder to hone my analysis and defend my theoretical assertions. I particularly wish to extend a special thank you to Bob for inspiring me to pursue this topic with his unending enthusiasm for the research, his intellectual rigor and his theoretical and methodological insight. I can truly say that this work would not have been completed had you not been a part of my doctoral experience at SFU. Margaret also richly deserves mention here. She was a tremendous support through some difficult phases of this work and I could always count on her for honest advice and poignant insight. For this, as well as her great sense of humor, I wish to say thank you. In addition to the great academic support I received during this endeavor, I am also deeply indebted for the unwavering support of my fitends and family. In fact, I can honestly say that without my fitends who became like surrogate family to me, I would not have survived this experience. Chantal, Dan (and Claire) and Becky have all helped me in so many ways through all of this and I cannot imagine my time at SFU without them close at hand. I would like to thank each one of them for their dear fitendship, emotional support and collegiality through the last several years of my life. You truly made this a more worthwhile and enjoyable experience. Most significantly, I want to thank my life partner Sandy for her boundless capacity to support and encourage me through the ups and downs of juggling teaching, writing and life in general over the last four years. This work is in many ways as much yours as it is mine. It is hard to put into words the gratitude I feel for your continuing contribution to all areas of my life. May the end of this phase of my life signal the start of a new and exciting phase of our future life together. Finally, I must acknowledge all the fans of reality-based courtroom television whose Internet conversations I studied; all the litigants who argued their disputes on these programs without knowing they were part of my research; and the two TV judges who inspired me to take this topic seriously. Thank you for always reminding me that there are many realities in the world. I hope that I have been successful in conveying yours here in the pages that follow. TABLE OF CONTENTS APPROVAL ...................................................................................................................... n.. ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... m... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ vi PART I: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1 Setting the Scene.............................................................................................................. 1 Now We're 'Talking' ......................................................................................................6 A Brief Note on Terminology ..........................................................................................9 Self.Help. Responsibility and Reality TV ..................................................................... 13 Judging the Judgers .......................................................................................................18 Sites of Analysis ............................................................................................................23 Defining. Reality............................................................................................................. 26 Defimtions of Reality TV: .............................................................................................27 Reality and Television in Historical Perspective: ..........................................................33 Law and Order. Social Control. and Normalization ......................................................44 All Talk and No Action: Daytime 'Trash TV' Talk Shows