Lee Siegel explains why we like "Judge Judy"

I confess to being a regular watcher of Judge Judy. For those who live on another planet and have never seen the show, IMDb describes it thus: "Judge Judy Sheindlin, a former judge from New York, tackles actual, small claims cases with her no-nonsense attitude in which damages of no more than $5,000 can be awarded.... After a case is closed, the defendant and plaintiff briefly confront each other outside the court-room."

Judge Judy is an example of what is called "reality TV". At the top of each show, we are told that "The people are real. The cases are real. The judgments are final!" I often paraphrase the first two sentences to "The people are stupid. The cases are stupid." The first sentence can also be changed to "The people are fat!" and be equally true.

Judge Judy, you see, stars average Americans -- the kind of fat, stupid people you see on the news or in a Michael Moore documentary. These fat stupid people do stupid things, as Judge Judy reminds them with her acid put-downs. So why do I watch these over-the-back-fence arguments about dog fights, accidents caused by unlicensed drivers driving cars with no insurance, and gifts to ex-lovers which the giver later claims were loans? Is it like the prurient curiosity we have passing by a car accident or a drunk passed out in the gutter? Why do I not avert my eyes?

Last night the explanation for my fascination was given to me by Lee Siegel, a Jewish, liberal, New Yorker who writes criticism and essays on culture for Harper's, The New Republic and The Atlantic Monthly. How strange that someone totally unlike me, writing in publications I never read, should understand my motivation so well! Here's what Mr. Siegel says in an an essay called "UFOs".

There is [in Americans a] surging love for the absurd, and therefore contemptible, person. From politics to reality shows, we seem to like to be surrounded by people ruleed by greed, hampered by stupidity, blinkered by obsession. These sad, bored [people], their faces blank, their landlocked figures full-sail with heartland obesity...--these people are easy to laugh at, and therefore easy to accommodate.

In America, attention must be paid! Attention, that is, to everything freakish, inadequate, unthreatening, and thus usefully supportive perhaps of a shaky sense of worth, of identity. More and more, the spectacle of human inadequacy on television is like one long public stoning.

Exactly. Watching these obese, doltish and poor people makes us feel better about ourselves. We are better than they. OK... I confess... I am better than they. And I feel good about it. How about you?

Further reading: "UFOs" is the 39th chapter in a collection of Lee Siegel's essays published by Basic Books in 2007 as Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television. The book has not aged well. The first four sections ("Cops", "Sitcoms", "Comedy", and "Cartoons") critique shows which (as Garrison Keillor would say) are no longer with us. I would add, "and a good thing too." The sections on race, religion, war, news and documentaries are still relevant and worth reading.

Presidential debates as reality shows

Did you watch the Great Debate last night? Why??!! Did you expect to learn something about economics? Were you genuinely unsure who to vote for and thought the debate would help you make up your mind? Or did you tune in just for the entertainment value?

Entertainment value is important in the Excited States of America nowadays. Last weekend, as poll after poll showed that Mitt was not inevitable after all, the pundits were saying that the lamestream media would have to start hyping Romney to give at least the appearance of a horserace, for the sake of ratings over the next five weeks. Who wants to watch a contest where the result is already known?

Walt suspects that the majority of those who tuned in did so with minds already made up, cheering either for the candidate sitting in the red corner or the one in the blue corner. And what they wanted to see was a good scrap during which one or the other would get knocked down for the count, or slip and fall out of the ring, or commit some horrible gaffe which would lead to effective disqualification.

I think I've pushed the metaphor far enough. My point, if you missed it, is that the debates have become just another TV reality show. Perhaps they have been so ever since the sweat dripped off Nixon's face and caused 1000s of grossed-out voters to pull the lever for the dry and clean-shaven JFK. The crook who said he was not a crook thus became the first contestant to be voted off!

The first show in the 2012 series of Big Big Brother was not on a par with Superbowl or a WWF cage match. There was no knockout or even a TKO, but in Walt's estimation you had to give the match to Mitt on points. It wasn't so much that Mitt was hot but that the Prez was not so hot.

Obama talked about policy in more detail than an insurance salesman, but pulled his punches on Romney’s business experience and the spycam "47% video". One correspondent called Obama's attack, or lack thereof, "muted and strangely reticent".

Rudy Giuliani was quoted as saying Obama’s unease showed. "This is the first time in four years, since he debated Hillary Clinton, that anyone has really challenged this man, and he fell apart," said the wily pol, describing Obama at times as "totally befuddled".

To put it another way, it was not so much a debate as much as Mitt taking a drive in the country with Obama tied to the fender.

Does this mean we should rush to the bookmaker's and get our bets down before the odds change? Is it, as Republican Senator John Thune said, "a whole new ball game"? Hardly! Mitt picked up a first down last night, but the goal is still a good 60 yards down the field and the media wind is against him.

Note from Ed.: I have extracted from Walt a promise signed in blood that he will ease up on the sports analogies. What with the NHL season looking likely to be cancelled in its entirety, I think he is suffering from withdrawal.