There’s no denying that Judge Judy has tackled several tough cases throughout her lifetime, especially before she became one of the most recognizable faces on television. She spent years fighting battles in family court as a prosecutor and soon became a judge that became known for the personality we now see on TV. The difference now is that it’s all for entertainment.
As most know, Judge Judy and shows like it specialize in small claims arbitration, where the parties involved in the case agree to drop their court cases and take them to the show for a solution. It’s where the misery of life comes out and is forced to play for the joy of the viewing audience. Just take reality TV producer Sharon Houston for example. She explains her job in a very interesting piece from AOL, where she also explains the process behind finding folks to be on the show:
For example, if you’re from Detroit, Houston, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Kansas City, New Orleans, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Gary, or Atlanta, I’m calling you no matter what the case is about. Why? Because that’s where crazy lives. I’m also going to call you if you’re suing for pain and suffering, mental distress, mental agony, nightmares, and my favorite, loss of enjoyment of life. I also love it when Plaintiff wants to sue Defendant for being “triflin’.” That’s good stuff!
Here’s where the job gets really stressful: We have to make sure litigants get on their flight to L.A. A lot of great cases don’t happen because the litigants are afraid to fly. Many times litigants have told me, “Jesus told me not to get on the plane.” One lady I tried to book said, “If Jesus wanted me to fly he’d have made me a parakeet, a mosquito, a butterfly, a bat” and so on. I interrupted her list of things that can fly by noting the fact that Jesus rose from the dead so technically, he was the first to fly and would want her to fly, too. Didn’t work.
That’s just a slice. And it’s part of the reason why Priceonomics sought her out for their in-depth look at what they call the “hypocrisy” of Judge Judy and other court room series. The piece is an interesting look behind the scenes of these shows and how they operate, particularly the parts that happen before the cameras start rolling:
It’s no secret that the majority of the people who appear on Judge Judy and court TV shows are poor. People with money don’t sue each other over $5,000, and if they feud in public, they don’t do it on daytime television. But the biggest insight from talking with Houston is fully appreciating the litigants’ poverty.
“I have to ask them if they have teeth,” Houston has said. Most of the litigants, she explains, don’t have a full set of teeth, so the show buys them a pair for their appearance—or paints their teeth if they’re rotten and discolored from drug use. They might also take them to a hairdresser or barber, and they provide clothes that look nice but not too nice.
“If you saw what America actually looks like, you’d be horrified,” Houston says. “You wouldn’t turn on the TV.”
Priceonomics also hits on the criticisms behind the show, especially on Sheindlin herself. They not only bring up her record salary but also bring up the circumstances behind those who appear on the show:
And there is something disconcerting about a well off judge mocking poor defendants for being unprepared or struggling to present their case. “These people have been in a cycle of poverty,” Houston tells us. “It’s just something we don’t understand.”
This isn’t only a matter of sympathy. Eldar Shafir, a Princeton psychologist, has studied how poverty prevents people from solving puzzles similar to an IQ test. “Financial constraints capture a lot of your attention,” he has said. “Then there’s less bandwidth left to solve problems. Your cognitive ability starts to slow down, just like a computer.”
Likely the most interesting part is that there is no real judgment in this piece and nothing is honestly black and white — unless it is this case. Much like the cases she took on during her career or now sees in her television courtroom, there is no firm moral stream that flows equally through each case. Judy gets praise as much as she gets some flak for sometimes lecturing people who may not know better.
If you have the time, definitely give it a read. It’s not only eye opening about the process behind running a reality television show, but it makes a fairly strong case for Judy being the right woman for the job.
(Via Priceonomics / The AV Club / AOL / Fox4 KC)
