Reality TV: Double-Edged Sword
May 30, 2008 12:13 PM
Judge Cristina
Recently, I received the news that I was nominated for my first Daytime Emmy Award—in the brand new court category. I can’t tell you what a privilege it is to be nominated in a category with such diverse legal talent. I’ve been a Judge-Host of court shows like “La Corte de Familia” (Telemundo/NBC) and now with my current show, “Cristina’s Court” (20th Television). I’m also privileged to be the first Spanish-to-English language crossover host in the court genre.
The Emmy nomination has inspired me to reflect on the court television genre—one I consider to be the first and true form of “reality television.” Court shows have been a TV staple. In my opinion, they are reality TV at its finest. Aside from some courtroom antics and crazy cases, they also can be educational, as they present and solve real life problems as well as promote an opportunity to display the importance of values and accountability for one’s actions in life.
Court shows are the ultimate unscripted dramas, told with enthusiasm, passion and some drama. Some cases may appear trite and over nominal amounts, however, on Cristina’s Court, the message we want to give viewers is that we can learn to use the law to protect and help, versus as a tool for abuse and manipulation. If this comes across the airwaves, then we are on the right track. If people use the law solely to belittle, punish, and seek revenge, or as a shield to take away rights, the more it will erode.
Now, back to reality TV. I’m sure you’ve heard of a new show recently premiered featuring actress/model Denise Richards (“Denise Richards: It’s Complicated”). The show will apparently document the personal lives of Richards and her two young daughters. FYI, prior to filming, it took a court ruling to decide that her children can legally be included in the show.
Generally, reality shows document personal lives as graphically and intimately as possible. What is the fascination with other people’s lives that we need to have cameras brought into their homes and go through their dirty laundry as if it’s our own? Also, what would make a person want to air their private life (and their families) to the world?
How will this particular show affect the children? Albeit, their mother now has the ‘legal’ right to have the kids on the program. We can only hope that she knows what is in the best interests of her children. Also, what is fascinating and quite ironic is that most celebrity parents go to extraordinary lengths to protect their children’s privacy from the media, understanding that celebrity can be a double-edged sword.
These are children whose parents have been discrediting each other in the media very publicly. Whether or not we believe that the children have been completely sheltered from their parents’ often-nasty divorce battle, we have to consider if there is any benefit at all for these or any children to have their whole lives put on a TV show. What’s the purpose? Is it to somehow show who is the better parent or to validate that one parent is a ‘great’ parent?
This reminds me of a proverb I learned: “La mejor palabra es la que no se dice” which loosely translates into, “the best word is the one that is not said.” So, with that, enough said for now. See you in Court.
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Fark 
StumbleUpon 
Comments (8)
Congrats on the Emmy nomination. I refuse to watch Denise Richards' show. I really do, but it's not to say I haven't been caught up in the trap of reality TV before. I was addicted to Rock of Love:) but at least Bret Michaels didn't bring his kids on the show!
Posted by Miss Attitude | June 2, 2008 1:23 PM
Yeah! for the Emmy Nom! I love reading your blog and can't wait until the next one comes out. : )
Posted by gylliwilli | June 6, 2008 12:15 PM
Dear Judge Cristina,
I love your show and watch all the time. Congrats on the Emmy nomination. You asked "Also, what would make a person want to air their private life (and their families) to the world?", well besides the self validation competition issue that you mentioned, I think she's doing it for the money!! I dont watch that show, I have enough drama in my own life.
Anyhow, I do catch your show when I can, it's very entertaining, and you are a fair and understanding judge. Today however,(on the show aired June 17th,2008) between "Stadalsky vs. Erjavec", called “Ex’s Rent Rampage”, I was disappointed with your remarks concerning child support.
You said "it's always about child support",and for once you said you wanted to hear a parent say -ok, you cant pay, fine we wont make it about that, and you said that the custodial parent should take full responsibility and work 5 jobs if needed, to do what they need to do and not have to depend on the absent parent to take care of the kids, or whatever. That floored me.
That attitude is not only wrong morally and legally, but will have a negative impact financially and emotionally on the whole family, and will hurt the kids the most in the end.
In the scenario you laid out in todays case, the custodial parent should work 5 jobs if need be to support the kids, so then what? The custodial parent is dead tired and emotionally drained and never home. When they are home, they wont be much good to the kids if they're dead tired and emotionally drained, and financially stressed. In the scenario you laid out, where the custodial parent "works 5 jobs" then the kids are more than likely raised by strangers or in daycare,(not everyone has family to babysit)-or in the case of older kids-they will be home alone with way too much freedom and time on their hands,(which is one of the main reason kids get into trouble!).
Not to mention the fact that it puts major stresses emotionally and physically and financially on a person thats already stressed trying to do the job of 2 parents, and raising kids alone. Not to mention the high cost of living today, the fact that in this day and age it takes at least 2 incomes to even be able to pay the bills, food, rent/mortgage, clothes/neccessities, medical etc..not including the outrageous gas prices.
So, in the scenario you laid out, the non-custodial parent gets out of their obligation and financial responsibility to their kids, and what? They get to be a parent whenever they feel like it, and have extra money or time? Wow, thats unbelievably cruel, not only to the custodial parent but also to the kids, who will undoubtably go without- financially and go without their parent that works "5 jobs" under your scenario, in order to be self-sufficient.
In the state where I live it's the legal obligation of both parents to financially support the kids that they both brought into the world, no matter who the kids live with. The courts here figure out child support amounts by adding up what both parents make, and dividing that so that the the amount paid is due to the income standards the child lived under when the parents were together, if the parents were together. So the child doesnt end up living in poverty. It takes 2 to make a child, and in the childs best interest, the non-custodial parent should not only be financially responsible but should WANT to support and be there and help their kids so that they dont suffer needlessly, and go without, or end up alone much of the time or raised by strangers cuz the custodial parent works 16 or more hours a day to feed them and pay bills.
You know, I divorced my alcoholic abusive husband when my first 3 kids were little and I was a single mom of 3. One of which has mild spastic cerebral palsey, and had to have leg casts for 3 months, then orthotic leg braces and do PT (physical therapy). We had costly medical bills, and doctor appointments, and his dad didnt have medical insurance thru his employment. Anyhow my ex was ordered to pay child support, and he had a decent job working with his dad,(his parents had a plumbing company). He was good about paying until he re-married, then he refused to pay, he even lied to the courts and said he wasnt working etc..His parents started paying him cash, or with their personal checks and he got away with it for quite awhile.
Meanwhile, I worked 2 jobs, my kids spent 12 hours a day in daycare, (or part of the day in school and the rest in daycare). By the time I picked them all up and went home to make them dinner, do homework, prepare for the next day, and get them bathed and in bed, I was exhausted. I barely made enough to make ends meet, my parents did help when they could with stuff like clothes, and stuff that I couldnt afford. If not for my parents, my kids would have went without stuff they needed, and still not seen me, cuz I worked 12-16 hrs a day.
In order to be more self-sufficient, make more money, and have decent medical insurance I went to college got my degree, passed state boards and became an RN.
But, my parents worked also, therefore they couldnt babysit. My kids ended up spending most of their days in daycare, and when they got old enough to be home alone, they had too much free time, while I was working and going to college. They got into trouble and went thru stuff they shouldn't have had to go thru -if their dad had helped support them as he was supposed to, I could have been home with them more!
Anyhow, he ended up going to jail for felony non-support, he owed so much money by the time he was caught working, that he went to jail for it. That helped no-one really, well it did help him get his priorities straight enough to decide he'd rather help support his kids than sit in jail. But honestly, it sure felt good to know that he was finally held accountable for all the pain and suffering that his irresponsibility and selfishness caused my kids and myself!
It takes 2 people to bring kids into this world, and it takes 2 in this day and age to support them and keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, so why should 1 parent be able to walk away scottfree, while the kids and other parent suffer and go without?
I remarried in 1997, we have 1 son who is 9 yrs old, and my 2nd husband is a wonderful father. My older 3 kids are adults now, and by their own choices they have little to do with their dad, cuz they realize he wasnt there for them, cuz he wanted to hurt me for divorcing him. They have come to realize we all suffered due to his selfishness. Kids do suffer when one of their parents abandons them emotionally and financially, no matter what. In the end it's the kids who pay. If the non-custodial parent doesn't help raise the kids, or at least help financially support them, then the kids will suffer, no matter how many jobs the custodial parent works,or how much money they make, cuz the kids are alone with no parents there when they need them!
Posted by Tempest | June 17, 2008 2:34 PM
I do not usually watch reality TV. On an off chance, I did watch your show today. It was the episode "I won't let you see your grandson". I have to say honestly, that I will not make the mistake of watching your show now or anytime in the future. I was throughly disgusted with your ruling. I am very good at "reading" people and even I could plainly see that the grandparents were control freaks with a splash of manipulation. How could you not see that? Granted, the mother has some mental problems BUT she shouldn't have had her son taken from her. I too live by a little saying that I came up with some time ago. "Listen much and talk little". You can learn sooooo much more when you really take the time to listen and observe people's body language. I do wish you the best of luck with your nomination though.
Posted by Kelli | June 23, 2008 10:48 AM
I do not usually watch reality TV. On an off chance, I did watch your show today. It was the episode "I won't let you see your grandson". I have to say honestly, that I will not make the mistake of watching your show now or anytime in the future. I was throughly disgusted with your ruling. I am very good at "reading" people and even I could plainly see that the grandparents were control freaks with a splash of manipulation. How could you not see that? Granted, the mother has some mental problems BUT she shouldn't have had her son taken from her. I too live by a little saying that I came up with some time ago. "Listen much and talk little". You can learn sooooo much more when you really take the time to listen and observe people's body language. I do wish you the best of luck with your nomination though.
Posted by Kelli | June 23, 2008 10:48 AM
Dear Judge Christina,
I try to watch your show as often as I can because you bring a warmth and caring feeling to the courtroom.
Please do not be offended by what I am to say regarding your appearance. You are a very beautiful woman, something I can appreciate being a man, however those false eye lashes do not do you justice. They are too bold as I watch you as you are looking down at your desk or paperwork during a case. Is it possible that you can have your makeup people use something more appealing and less noticable? Like I said, please do not be offended, but just my thoughts. I enjoy your show and want to congratulate you on your success in and out of the court room. Sam from Pa.
Posted by Samuel Hasson | June 27, 2008 10:17 AM
Hey Kelli: If you really did watch that episode (and understand it) didn't you realize that the lady was actually NUTS! Guess not! Anyway, Cristina is best of all the TV judges because she's real!
Posted by Ray Anthony | July 1, 2008 7:40 PM
Saludos, aveces veo su programa en Puerto Rico por Telemundo,pero el de hoy 10/13 me choco de tal manera cuando usted decia que no era nada que los niños juegen con muñecas-si uno no les enseña que esta mal no van aprender; yo tengo un nieto y me dijo abu quiero una muñeca estando en una tienda (y solo tiene 2años y 6meses)y yo le dije los varones no juegan con muñecas solo las niñas, usted aparenta darle favoritismo a los homosexsuales algo que esta encontra de la naturaleza,porque Dios creo un hombre y una mujer no un entre medio y no se nace homosexsual,la palabra lo dice en Romanos 1:26,27/donde habla de la pecaminosidad del hombre - y si no advertimos con la verdad de que vale la corte de familia???
Posted by Elizabeth Melendez | October 13, 2008 12:41 PM