Jodi Arias Trial: Is It REALLY News: What Nancy Grace, Dr. Drew, and Their Mutualistically Symbiotic Talking Heads Wish for Us to Believe

A. J.  Hammer  on Showbiz Tonight to the Jodi Arias on Showbiz Tonight discussed ten reasons why our nation is obsessed with this case in particular.  I haven't paid attention to ratings, and furthermore, if self-reporting of viewing  and/or Nielsen ratings are the only gauges available as to just how obsessed America is with this case, I question their reliability and validity.   I'm not sure I believe that the American public is as engaged in this trials as are the talking heads of the media. Furthermore, a. J. Hammer hosts Showbiz Tonight. Neither Jodi Arias nor the man she killed were show business personalities prior to the murder. What is it about committing or being accused of having committed a murder that warrants qualifying a person to the distinction of "show business personality"?   It was bad enough when the media chose to try to pass off Kate Gosselin or any of the Kardashians to the rest of us as bona fide celebrities. But accused murderer Jodi Arias? What's next? Should she have a star on Hollywood's walk of fame?

The case and the trial are not without sensational elements. Anything that features much sex -- kinky sex in particular -- will inevitably attract an element of the public. Still, is this trial a water-cooler or copy machine conversation topic?  It seems a stretch to assume that it is. Even though I'm a bit out of the loop in what's happening in my classes since I'm skyping versus showing up in the flesh, the skype kicks in almost ten minutes before class starts each day. I hear other students as they talk, and they occasionally even include me in their conversations. The only reference whatsoever that  I've heard about this case  from my university peers is how tired they are of it and how they wish it was over already. They don't seem to care about the outcome. And they're not out of the loop. The dorms are provided  with free cable access.  The university students have as much opportunity to watch the coverage as anyone else, and they are tired of it. My suspicion is that they're not alone.

I admit to having  been obsessed with other true crime cases, from the Jonbenet Ramsey Casey to the Chandra Levy case  to the Lacy Peterson case to the Elizabeth Smart case to the Caylee Anthony case. Nothing about this case, however, intrigues me or piques my curiosity in the least.  If other regular members of the public feel differently about this, however, and are grateful for the extensive media coverage, such is their right to feel theway they do. If A.J. Hammer, Dr. Drew. Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, and others like them are truly catering to the interests of the American public, they are doing their jobs.

If, however, what they are doing is trying to inject themselves into the news itself - trying to make news of a topic that isn't really newsworthy -- trying to create news for the purpose of creating ratings for their programs, what they are doing is reprehensible.  Just because this apparently has been a slow news month doesn't mean the talking heads have any right  to attempt to make a story more newsworthy than it is simply by highlighting the titillating aspects of it.  Such is reprehensible.

And, as a final note, the semi-regular segment of Nancy Grace's  program where she is shown conversing with herself about the day's issue, framed in a totally blacked-out background with only her head visible,  looking at God knows what but certainly not at the camera,  is odd to the point of preternaturality.

The Woman Who Makes Judge Judy's Voice Seem Easy on the Ears

In a recent post, I described Judge Judy as strident and shrill.  Maybe she is. Maybe she isn't. It was just an opinion.  By comparison, however, her voice is positively sonorous compared to that of Nancy Grace.

I understand that Ms. Grace has a job to do, and that, whether self-appointed to do so or whether it was the job for which she was actually hired,  she represents to voice of  the "guilty until proven innocent" contingent of our society.  I also understand that the presumption of innocence is required  in a court of law but that everywhere else, everyone is free to form their own opinions as to a person's innocence or guilt as long as such opinions are not stated in a libelous way.

I'm most put off by Ms. Grace's sense of self-importance and her vitriolic personality. Do you suppose she moderates her personality and state of mind when she's in a romantic mood, or even then does she spew venom about anyone and everyone who has ever been accused of a crime? Perhaps it was what attracted her husband to her in the first place. Then again, she has her twins. Maybe no further romance is desired. Don't imagine; it will only make you ill.

This is a slightly stupid thing about which to be annoyed, but has Ms. Grace noticed that only she refers to Casey Anthony as "Tot Mom"? What was so clever about that nickname, anyway? And why did Casey Anthony even need or deserve  a nickname?

By my calculations, I am 13% of the way through my workload for the quarter, though it is stupid of me to waste valuable time trying to determine precisely how far through my workload I am at a given moment. From now on, I'll just do the work, and I'll let  everyone know when I'm finished.

Toddlers and Tiaras

On the surface, I would appear to lack the qualifications to write about TLC's "Toddlers and Tiaras." I've seen very few episodes of the show. I'm almost never alone at home -- either my own home or the Pseudos' home -- and if I turn the program on, someone bigger than I changes the channel or turns the TV off and tells me I cannot afford to fill my mind with such garbage. Once we tried to watch a marathon of "Toddlers and Tiaras" episodes when I was still being treated as an inpatient for PTSD. We had sort of a standoff with the staff, which ended in Chairman Mao announcing to us all over the speaker phone that if he had to leave his home at 10:00 p.m. to take care of the problem, he would cut the cable to every TV in the wing for an entire month. Nevertheless, there seems to be so little variation between one episode and the next of "Toddlers and Tiaras" that after watching one or two episodes, a person knows as much as he or she will ever know about the show.

In general, I dislike reality TV because it isn't real and it messes up the lives of those who agree to be filmed. One could argue that those appearing entered into a contract to be filmed with what should have been full disclosure if they had even half of a functioning brain. The uncontrolled variable is probably the assumption that the person who entered into the contract was in possession of half of a functioning brain. I've never seen one parent on "Toddlers and Tiaras" who appeared in possession of sufficient mental capacity to open an Otter Pop without injuring herself or someone else.

One of the things I detest most about the editing is when the program shows Kid A strutting his or (more frequently)her stuff, usually during a talent routine. Then the camera pans to the parent of Kid B. If Kid A is tearing up the stage, doing a first-rate version of his or her talent portion, parent of Kid B invariably has a death scowl on his or her (usually her) face. If Kid A is standing motionless on the stage, sucking her thumb while her mother is facing the stage, going through a highly animated version of all the motions of the asinine routine as Kid A should be doing it, the camera pans to mother of Kid b with a hueg shit-eating grin. These mothers are blood-thirsty.

In not all cases, but in most cases I've seen, the mothers are decidedly in the sub-average department in terms of appearance. People age differently, but in most cases, it's hard to imagine that the mothers were ever beauty pagenat material at any stage of their development. Then the mothers went on to produce children, usually daughters, who ranged somewhere from bona fide cute to not-too-far-below-average, at which point a lightbulb must have illuminated the mothers' minds: here was a second chance at beauty pageant stardom!

Between the costs of dresses and other costumes, entry fees, costs of tutoring in talent and the "pageant wave," hairstylists' fees, traveling costs, and other incidental expenses, the families of the children featured in "Toddlers and Tiaras" typically spend tens of thousands of dollars annually on their hobby/obsession. An occasional middle class family is featured, but more often, the family appears to be roughly one spray tan fee away from their electricity being cut off. My parents both had jobs, but if I had suggested entering just one of those pageants as a child, the answer most likely would have been a non-negotiable no. If, however, I'd found my parents in a particularly weak moment and managed to negotiate, I would've had to give up Christmas and birthday gifts, allowance for a year, a substantial portion of my share of the inheritance, and would've had to collect cans by the highway every weekend for at least six months. These families take the costs in their strides, as though every parent goes without deodorant, toothpaste, or health insurance so that her daughter can appear as a painted-up hussy on a twelve-inch stage at the age of four or five.

I suspect that if I watched more than three episodes of "Toddlers and Tiaras," I would quickly become practically comatose with the whole concept. To make it more interesting to the viewing public, I propose a few changes. First and foremost, the judges need to be people who are just as disgusted by the whole scene as we all are and who would therefore be thoroughly snarky. I would propose as judges Judith Scheindlin (the strident and apparently clairvoyant Judge Judy of TV syndication fame), Dr. Drew Pinsky (who would analyze things to death), the professionally angry talking head Nancy Grace (I cannot recall where I first read the "professionally angry" description of her, but if fits well), Hugh Hefner (who obviously likes women young),Hugh Laurie of TV's "House," with the assumption that he would bring with him some of his TV character's trademark snark, and Chelsea Handler to add class and refinement to the festivities (if you understand that the festivities are so unrefined and lacking in class that Chelsea Handler's inclusion would actually add class and refinement rather than subtract them, you're getting a true picture of what goes on at these pageants). Additionally, Kate Gosselin should be required to bring at least one of her children to compete each week. Ms. Gosselin is enough of a fame whore that only the tawdry glitz of the setting should bother her; she otherwise glams onto any opportunity to shove her face in front of a camera.

One addition to the cast of my proposed "New and Improved Toddlers and Tiaras" is Alex Ferrer. He should be the Master of Ceremonies. The under-three crowd would take one look at his hulking frame, even minus the black robe, and go screaming off the stage, therefore allowing each episode to finish in its allotted time. He wasn't chosen to be on the upcoming season's "Dancing with the Stars," so he presumably needs a replacement gig.

If my proposed changes are made, we can laugh with the producers of this debacle, rather than at them, as we presently do.

Casey Anthony/ Cindy Anthony /Perjury/ Judeg Alex/ Dr. Drew

Surprise, surprise. Witnesses were called in to refute Cindy Anthony's claim that she and not he daughter performed the bulk of the incriminationg computer searches found on the Anthony computer. I debated this point briefly on Twitter with Judge Alex a few days ago. No debate with Judge Alex on Twitter goes on for many exchanges. Judge Alex is a true gentleman and understands that it is more important to behave in a classy manner than to always be right in any argument, and he lets the argument go quickly. In this case, I was actually correct for once when I said that it was feasible to subpoena patient records or other documents with the patients' names redacted for the purpose of establishing that Cindy was at work at the times she claimed to have been at home making the searches. I must give credit to pseudoaunt jillia, who first suggested the idea to me.

Exactly how this impacts the jury's take on anything remains to be seen.
Those selecting the jury don't give out IQ tests or auditory comprehension assessments before seating individuals on a jury. Aunt Jillian has told of jury panels on which she has been where a statement or instruction was given as plainly as day, yet needed further clarification to some jurors. Jillian said if the less-than-genius jurors recognize their shortcomings and will rely on others for interpretations of what was said or instructed, things usually work out. When they're unaware of their shortcomings, however, problems ensue.

Furthermore, many people in tTVland have formed thei opinions based on what the talking heads have had to say. The jurors have not had the benefit of the talking heads' expertise. (In some cases, considering the relative idiocy spewed by the talking heads, this is actually a good thing.) In most instances, however, Vinnie Politan, Judge Alex, and Dr. Drew have been sharing very sensible commentary. Some of the jurors would benEfit from hearing what it is they've heard in testimony via this commentary, yet, for obvious reasons, may not be privy to the commentary.

Some talking heads and forum posters are debating whether or not Cindy Anthony will face perjury charges for her apparently false testimony concerning who conducted the incriminating Internet searches regarding chloroform, neck breaking, and other various and sundry nefarious topics.
Nancy Grace has taken an uncharacteristically compassionate stance toward Cindy Anthony in this regard. She feels that Cindy Anthony should be granted a pass, as she was acting out of desperation in orde to possibly save her daughter from a death sentence. The bald man, whose name I can never recall, who filled in for Dr. Drew, didn't seem to understand what Ms. Grace was saying. his point was that it is wrong to lie for one's child in order to protect one's child from the consequences of the law. I don't think Nancy Grace disagrees with what he said in principle. Especially early on, when stakes are lower, it is very important to allow one's child to suffer the full consequences of his actions in order that he or she might learn from mistakes and never have to face this ultimate consequence that Casey may face. I assume Ms. Grace agrees with that. When it comes right down to a death sentence, however, it's a different matter. I cannot judge Cindy Anthony for what she did, as I do not know that I wouldn't do the same thing under similar circumstances. Even Dr. Drew, the King of Ethics, admitted that he's not sure what he would do under the circumstances.

Many talking heads are betting on a conviction of second degree murder, which, in the opinion of many talking heads, would be a victory for the defense. The jurors have not heard this take. They may not know that were they to convict Casey of such, they would, in essence, be granting a victory to Mr. Baez. I'm hoping the more intelligent jurors are able to convince the less bright ones that the computer searches are sufficient evidence of premeditation, and that no actual evidence of accidental death via drowning was actually present, and that, furthermore, George Anthony's affair, whether or not it happened, is little more than a red herring.

I'm counting on Jeff Ashton and his assistants to deliver a knockout punch in the form of a perfectly delivered closing argument, with the rebuttal portion putting out any fires the defense sets in the name of reasonable doubt. In my opinion, reasonable doubt in this case exists only in the minds of the defense team.

Just What Everyone Wants to Read: More Casey Anthony Info

I promise to eventually write about something bseides the trial of Casey Anthony. I have one question: I wonder if Jose Baez will eventually do something to create a mistrial? Since he's practically begging for comtempt of court sanctions, what's next?

By the way, I WAS Nancy Grace yesterday at our "Talking Heads Day" function. It was as though I channeled her all day and evening. I grew so weary of saying "Goodnight, friend" that I was seriously afraid I'd toss my cookies if I said it even one more time, but I did, of course, say it many more times. It's her signature line. Some of the staff nembers said I was almost as good at being Nancy Grace as Nancy Grace herself is, and that if she ever needed to stay home to take care of John David or little Lucy, I could probably fill in without the viewers being any the wiser. I hated myself all day.