I\u27m not a judge but I play one on TV : American reality-based courtroom television

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 \u27s 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\u27s perspective, a purposive sampling of viewer comments fiom 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\u27Barr (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\u27s Court presents a participatory-democratic vision 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 fiom a distance facilitated by technology; the increasing use of judgement as a form of entertainment; and the incitement to not only \u27judge for ourselves,\u27 but to judge ourselves against the normative yardstick of those marginalized litigants who turn to the TV tribunal as a court of last resort