To call Nancy Grace’s grasp of criminal law shallow is to insult puddles. The woman whose television persona is built on the concept that there’s no need for evidence when a heavily hair-sprayed delusion will fill the void has given new meaning to the words, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Put a match near her head and test her approach.
One ramification of the CNN Hostess Twinkie is that real lawyers won’t appear on her show. The corollary is that the only people who will grace her set are those whose desire to have their lovely face on the screen exceeds any interest in dignity or integrity. Clearly, nothing lawyerly will ever come of it, but it does allow the lawyer to impress their potential client base with the great importance of having television pundit credentials, especially for those to whom Nancy Grace represents the epitome of deep thinking.
I, of course, mean no slight to CNN for giving this popular television lawyer a pulpit to spew. It’s all about selling commercials, and I, as a capitalist, fully appreciate that the need to attract as broad an audience as possible, to sell consumer products and services. And if Nancy Grace is what the people want, so be it.
I believe that this adequately expresses my thoughts on Nancy Grace’s merit as a legal analyst and commentator and the information value of her television show in aiding the public’s understanding of the law.
In the absence of real lawyers to fill the empty air time between Grace’s delusions and commercials, the show has been largely relegated to the handful of lawyers who want so desperately to be on television that they are prepared to join in the inanity of the shameless. Like Grace, they too have earned the description of Twinkie.
But even twinkies have limits, we learn from this post by Alexis Neely, who proclaims that she will never again appear on Nancy Grace’s television show.
One ramification of the CNN Hostess Twinkie is that real lawyers won’t appear on her show. The corollary is that the only people who will grace her set are those whose desire to have their lovely face on the screen exceeds any interest in dignity or integrity. Clearly, nothing lawyerly will ever come of it, but it does allow the lawyer to impress their potential client base with the great importance of having television pundit credentials, especially for those to whom Nancy Grace represents the epitome of deep thinking.
I, of course, mean no slight to CNN for giving this popular television lawyer a pulpit to spew. It’s all about selling commercials, and I, as a capitalist, fully appreciate that the need to attract as broad an audience as possible, to sell consumer products and services. And if Nancy Grace is what the people want, so be it.
I believe that this adequately expresses my thoughts on Nancy Grace’s merit as a legal analyst and commentator and the information value of her television show in aiding the public’s understanding of the law.
In the absence of real lawyers to fill the empty air time between Grace’s delusions and commercials, the show has been largely relegated to the handful of lawyers who want so desperately to be on television that they are prepared to join in the inanity of the shameless. Like Grace, they too have earned the description of Twinkie.
But even twinkies have limits, we learn from this post by Alexis Neely, who proclaims that she will never again appear on Nancy Grace’s television show.
A couple years ago, I got caught up in this idea of fame and for a little while, it sort of took over my life. I told myself it was about making a difference and having an impact in the world, but then I read this article that says fame is really about the need to fit in and belong and I could clearly see my real motivation.
In one of her never-ending metacognitive moments, Alexis realized yet again that her self-serving rationalizations were nonsense, and that the tripe she purported to teach others was, at its core, a reflection of her own need for acceptance and validation. So her twits to her fans that she would be appearing on Nancy Grace (“look at me, aren’t I special”), all to the greater glory and financial value of her legal consulting business, were revealed as a reflection of her sense of personal unworthiness. Not exactly a selling point for the perky gal who gave herself the title, “America’s Favorite Lawyer.”
It started to become clear when I did all of the Michael Jackson coverage. I began to see I wasn’t really making a difference in the world and helping people with the media I was doing. I was spreading rumors and gossip. Sure, it was public and not behind anyone’s back, but was it really any less insidious?
I put it out of my mind because I liked getting all dressed up and putting on makeup and getting picked up by a car service and feeling special. So I kept doing it.
Even during this moment of self-revelation, Alexis couldn’t help but let us know about how she did “all the Michael Jackson coverage.” Old habits die hard, especially when they make you swell with self-importance.
I took 2.5 hours out of my day to get my hair done, get driven down to CNN on Sunset and get my makeup done and then sit in a chair for an hour watching Nancy run the same clip of one of Tiger’s girlfriends saying she was sorry if she hurt anyone over and over and over again at each break. I was on for less than 2 minutes with half of that time Nancy asking me inane questions I like “When did he [Tiger Woods] have time to be with all those women with two children?”
And therein lies the crucial question for which a highly trained, thoughtful, incisive legal mind is required on the Nancy Grace show. The puddle cringed. This was more than even a twinkie could take. Unfortunately, it was only half a lesson learned.
So I’m taking a stand. For now on, I will not do any television unless I’m totally clear that I’m doing it because it will help to lift viewers to a new level of awareness. I will not contribute to the inane dialogue, gossip and drama that is being perpetuated with most of today’s television programming.
The solution isn’t to eschew the need for validation by pretending to play a lawyer on TV, but rather that the Nancy Grace show is beneath the dignity of even a twinkie. Fame, apparently, is still a primary driving force, even if not sufficient to overcome the absolute worst that faux-legal punditry has to offer.
Or maybe this gift can be used for some greater purpose. Home shopping, perhaps?
I do believe I’ve been given a gift of looking great on camera, being able to convey a message quickly, and think on my feet. And I do not want to waste or deny that gift. But, it will need to be utilized in some way that does not make me feel dirty afterward and that is driven by my highest level desires to make a real difference in the world and raise people to a new level of awareness.It may not be much, but it’s better than nothing. Once there are no lawyers left in America willing to demean themselves by appearing on Nancy Grace’s show, perhaps CNN will get the message and cancel it, replacing it with cartoons so as not to lose the audience. After that’s accomplished, we can work on the self-esteem issues of those too twinkified to realize that there is no validation to be found as a lawyer by playing one on TV.
Or maybe this gift can be used for some greater purpose. Home shopping, perhaps?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Once there is no lawyer left in America willing to demean themselves by appearing on Nancy Grace’s show…
I think you know, the supply of such people is neverending and is increasing annually.
There will never be a shortage of lawyers pining to appear on national tv for the purpose of appearing on national tv. I appeared on O’Reilly during a high profile case. He was kind to me before the show, and then spent the segment yelling at me, because I was to be yelled at. I appeared on Court TV as a commentator during a high profile trial I was not involved in, and learned quickly that I was only there to be chided by the “I haven’t practiced law in 10 years” hysterical bitch who couldn’t believe I didn’t agree with her hysterics.
I’ll never forget turning Nancy down as her producer called and was told I was going to a baseball game with my Dad. I think someone fell out of their chair.
After that I decided I will no longer go on these “shows” unless I have something positive to say about my client that will matter (less than rare), or if I can “help a brother out” who is involved in a big case.
Nancy’s show is at the top of all these shows that appeal to the Jerry Springer clothesline and greasy white tank-top crowd who don’t understand why we don’t hang people anymore, upon arrest.
You’re right, no self-respecting real lawyer would appear on Nancy, ever.
Took her two years? Should’ve taken 2 minutes. 10 years ago when Twinkie first went on the air.
I refuse to accept it, he said, as the tidal wave washed over him.
Nice how you manage to sneak your tv appearances into your anti-TV appearance comment. Smoooooooth.
Epiphanies comes slower for some people than others.
Yeah, you see Scott, I thought instead of just spewing my opinion against appearing on Nancy, I would fully disclose, as I do on my bio(s) my appearances on these shows, so no one could come back and say “but wait – haven’t you appeared on these shows?”
I’m not into giving my opinion without full disclosure of my background on the subject. You know what I mean?
Indeed I do, Brian. You are nothing if not the paragon of full disclosure (even when no one asked).
Seriously, almost all of us have gone on television at one time or another. Some in the hope of glory and fame. Others in the hope of standing up for a position that would otherwise be lost if left to the vapid twinkies. It’s been my experience, with rare exceptions, that we are relegated to pointless filler, simplistic at best, idiotic at worst, questioning and often to be merely the butt of some host’s personal politics.
I watch Nancy Grace for the sheer ridicule value. I find her show highly entertaining in an extremely macabre way. Is that wrong? I suppose so, since it makes me part of the problem (rather than the solution) by giving her ratings.
I don’t know if you’ve posted before about the fact that Nancy “I’ve never lost a case” Grace had two (I believe) of the convictions she obtained as a prosecutor overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court because of ethical violations on her part. I believe in one of those opinions, the Court said that she played “fast and loose” with the rules of professional conduct. She’s such a hypocrite.
While I have mentioned Grace’s, ahem, negatives from time to time (and they go beyond her reversals for prosecutorial misconduct, like her lying about witnessing the murder of her fiance), it never hurts to mention them again just for good measure.
I’ve restrained myself from posting this comment to some of your posts, as it does not relate to the point of the post; but today I can’t resist. Your ability to create metaphors that describe people and issues is amazing – today, the first paragraph of this post actually had me rolling on the floor laughing. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a better description of Nancy Grace. And it doesn’t stop there…
Besides refreshing my pool of metaphors, I often pick up new words! “Twinkified”?
Scott,
Do you believe that being a lawyer on TV, and not just playing one, is acceptable? Is the problem both Nancy Grace and being a Twinkie and if you fixed them both, is that okay?
What I’m asking your opinion on, in short, is the appearance of lawyers on NPR or public television, who are actually being lawyers – offering insightful, educational and/or public-service minded commentary.
What say you about those folks?
Regards,
Victor
Just wait until the Urban Dictionary includes “twinkified”, thus assuring my immortality.
Geez, Victor. Suck all the fun out with a serious question. But it’s a good question. I’ve never been on a television show that was truly illuminating from a legal standpoint, as the nature is always somewhat superficial due to time constraints, the desire to simplify everything often to the point of meaninglessness and the host’s compulsion to spend more time asking questions than having them answered.
That said, I have no issue with lawyers appearing on serious broadcasts, provided they know the subject matter and have something meaningful to offer. This is the best means of preventing the public being told totally wrong information, even if the information is too limited to be truly accurate. The problem usually comes in when the lawyers who appear don’t know what they’re talking about, or are asked to speculate (which almost always happens), or assume non-existent facts because of the questions posed. Still, better to have a real lawyer with real knowledge trying his or her best to inform than some dumb, clueless show pony spouting nonsense because they look pretty on TV.
A funny (and oddly related) anecdote. I recall when Alexis was asked to be a guest on Nancy Grace for Michael Jackson. She twitted to make sure everyone knew she was going on TV, and then twitted that she guessed she would have to learn something about it before she got there. Funny, huh?
So yes, lawyers should do it, but only when they know the subject matter cold, know how to diffuse ignorant questions and add to the public’s knowledge rather than play to the crowd.
I don’t mean to clutter up your comments, but I just wanted to post a brief thank you for your reply. I was interested in reading your answer to my question and I appreciate that you took time to answer it.
Again, thanks.
As I read the first sentence of your comment, I braced myself for the inevitable. But it never came, so I will supply it:
I found this post very informative and useful. I will bookmark it for later use.
Nancy Grace Caught On Tape
This week Judith M. Mercier and Charles D. Tobin, attorneys representing TV personality Nancy Grace in a wrongful death lawsuit, filed an emergency motion seeking to cancel Grace’s videotape deposition. Alternatively, Mercier and Tobin requested …