It was worth the trip.
Reflection:
Media and Justice
Prof. Tammy Castle, PhD.
James Madison University
8 November 2010
As the class murmured their response to my greeting, quietly sizing up this guest-speaker, most avoided eye contact. Standing next to the lectern in front of them, and clutching a hot cup of coffee for liquid courage, I launched into a standard introduction. I tried to lead them into a discussion. I told them that I was not afraid to lecture at them for the full time, but that it might be more productive if we engaged in a conversation instead. At this, some ears and eyes perked up, so I continued in that direction for the rest of the class.
I asked them to consider the idea that both media and justice are "social constructions." Most of the class seemed comfortable with that idea, so I suggested that, by carefully looking at a particular TV show (Swift Justice with Nancy Grace), we might be able to see how the concept of justice is constructed, as a social practice, by mass media programs. I reminded them that there are specific ways of "doing media studies," and asked them to talk with me through their ways of looking at the show.
We began by projecting the website of the show onto the big screen in the front of the room. In order to begin the discussion, I started pointing out visual and textual choices that the site designers had made. After mentioning the use of particular fonts (sans serif fonts for text and links, stylized serif fonts for logos), the inclusion and location of different content frames (video previews, Facebook and Twitter feeds, and links stashed at the bottom of the page), and the similarity between the design of this page and that of other websites for mass-media outlets, I asked them for some of their reactions to the site.
Right away, the more extroverted members of the group began to raise their hands. They pointed out elements that I had not highlighted, like the use of tabs to hide more information about the show. As each student who spoke completed their points, and more details came to the fore of discussion, the observations began to expand from a list visual and textual cues to a more abstract analysis of the importance of the location of items on the page. We discussed, at length, the reasons for and implications of naming the show "Swift Justice," given the pseudo-legal status of the decisions made on the show. The centrality of the video preview, and its corresponding text, became a focal point of conversation. As we concentrated on that preview, the opportunity to bring the discussion into the content of the show grew more apparent.
So, we selected an episode from the list of previews on the site, noting its description as a "case," rather than just a "show." We read the explanatory text that accompanied the video preview, and then watched the very brief clip, of the promotional spot or "teaser" for the episode proper. Even without the details of the case available to them, the class was able to point out some of the most important visual and rhetorical strategies that the show's producers used to construct their idea of justice.
We talked about the ways that a viewer might decide the guilt or truth to be assigned to one or the other of the arguing parties. We also explored, in depth, the validity of using technological or social tools such as polygraph tests to determine truth, in addition to the verbal testimony and cross-examination by Nancy Grace and her guests. We also broke down the spatial organization of the set, wherein the audience, seated like jury members, can see the faces of all three "character" parties: the accuser, the accused, and the host, while at the same time, the two arguing parties must face and address Nancy Grace alone, rather than the audience or one another. The class readily picked up on the visual and social hierarchy that such an arrangement reinforces. When we turned to YouTube for a clip of some actual proceedings from the show, we found the testimony of a "body language expert," as well as the values of childhood innocence, truth-telling, and traditional gender roles all working together in another case. The class, by now, was well-attuned to "what to look for," and pointed out the over-simplification of "justice" at work in the show, as well as the instability of some basic assumptions that we make as viewers, like the 'reality' of the proceedings.
Following some broader generalizations, including a return to other parts of the website for context and background information, we stepped back from the particulars of Swift Justice, and considered the broader, more abstract questions that I had raised at the beginning of class. As we began to scrutinize the ways that justice is represented and constructed by this show, I suggested that a similar pattern of facile, dualistic, right/truth vs. wrong/lies paradigm extends to other mass-media entertainment that focuses on justice. The most important function of that paradigm is to force the viewer, through all the rhetorical and visual strategies that we had discussed, to agree with the judgment rendered by the authority figure in the show. Since the class seemed to agree with this proposition, and could provide examples to support the point, I extended the argument a bit further.
In conclusion, I suggested, our practice of studying media should take into account that the shows that we watch about justice, regardless of their content or form (scripted procedural drama no less than unscripted documentary or courtroom situational drama), perform a double duty. They present themselves as entertainment, first and foremost, but they also teach and reinforce the kind of cheap "justice" that the class had critiqued. More importantly, they do that precisely because it plays into patterns of behavior that viewers are likely to watch repeatedly, in effect, securing ratings for the show's producers, and increasing their advertising revenue. That revenue drives the ever-growing gap between rich and poor around the country; paradoxically, the most likely to watch this show are those with time in the middle of the day, either the very rich or the very poor. The ability to break this cycle, of shows about justice that perpetuate economic and social injustice, begins with a different way of viewing than simple consumption of entertainment. It begins, instead, with a critical viewing, just like the one that Dr. Castle's class and I attempted in this session.
