Tag Archives: television

Jumping the Shark

By Marc Williams

The Fonz

In 1977, the television sit-com Happy Days began its fifth season with an audacious episode that was different in tone from its first four years of episodes, it took the viewers by surprise. Happy Days’ appeal had always been its nostalgic attitude toward the 1950’s and the likable, down-to-earth characters around whom each episode focused. The motorcycle-riding, leather jacket-wearing heartthrob, Arthur “the Fonz” Fonzarelli–played by Henry Winkler–was the epitome of cool and remains an icon of coolness today.

Unexpectedly, in the fifth season’s premiere episode, the Fonz decided to prove his bravery by jumping over a shark while water skiing. It was a baffling moment in television history. The first four years of the show had nothing to do with water skiing and the Fonz had never been the kind of character who needed to “prove himself” to anyone. More superficially, viewers weren’t accustomed to seeing the Fonz in swimming trunks. It was an odd episode after which the series could never be the same–a point of no return. This moment gave birth to the phrase “jumping the shark,” a term coined by John Hein to describe the moment when a television show betrays its origins–perhaps suggesting that the writers have run out of ideas. Often, shows are thought to have jumped the shark when a key character leaves the show, or if an important new character is introduced. Hein started a website dedicated to the phenomenon, where readers can debate the moment in which their favorite television shows jumped the shark. Hein sold the website in 2006 but the site is still active.

Here’s a clip (via YouTube) of Fonzie’s famous shark jump:

The website argues that virtually any creative endeavor can jump the shark: musical groups, movies, advertising and political campaigns, and so on. But can an educational television program jump the shark? Some have argued that Discovery Channel’s Shark Week has done so.

For years, Shark Week has provided viewers fascinating documentaries about recent shark research and has captured some truly eye-popping footage. For example, the images captured in a 2001 Shark Week episode entitled “Air Jaws” captured some of the most stunning nature film I’ve ever seen–images of enormous great white sharks leaping completely out of the water, attacking seals and seal decoys. Like nearly everything one expects to see on The Discovery Channel, Shark Week is usually both entertaining and educational.

Clip from Air Jaws

Click to view a clip from “Air Jaws”

When watching that spectacular 2001 episode, I wondered to myself–”how will Discovery Channel ever top this?” What shark footage could possibly compete with these amazing images? How will they possibly attract viewers next year? Not surprisingly, Discovery Channel dedicated many of its subsequent Shark Week shows over the past twelve years to more footage of jumping great whites–and not much else. Perhaps the producers acknowledged that indeed, they simply couldn’t surpass the spectacle of “Air Jaws.” Until the 2013 installment of Shark Week, that is.

“Megalodon” was the centerpiece of Shark Week 2013, a documentary about the prehistoric shark that paleontologists believe grew to lengths of 60 feet or more. I’ve always been fascinated by megalodon; my older brother was a shark enthusiast when we were young and I vividly recall him showing me a photo of fossilized megalodon jaws he found in a book–I couldn’t believe that such an enormous creature ever lived. I was awed by the thought of it. Naturally, when I read that Discovery Channel was featuring Megalodon in its 2013 Shark Week series, I set my DVR.

The episode begins with some amateur video footage from a fishing party aboard a boat off the coast of Cape Town, South Africa. The amateur footage ends with some fearsome crashes and the viewer then learns that the footage was recovered from the boat’s wreckage–and that none of the young passengers survived. When my wife and I watched the episode, we both thought the footage looked a little too polished to be amateur footage. My wife said she didn’t remember hearing anything on the news of a horrible boating accident and I didn’t remember such a story either.

Viewers were then introduced to a self-proclaimed expert in mysterious oceanic events: a dubious specialty, held by a man who was perhaps a bit too comfortable in front of the documentarian’s camera.

As the program continues, viewers learn that megalodon may not be extinct after all! And of course, in true Shark Week fashion, there was some stunning footage that offered tantalizing glances of what might be a live megalodon in the ocean. The ocean is a huge place, we’re reminded, and new species are discovered every year. The coelacanth, for instance, was thought to be extinct for over 60 million years until a live specimen was discovered in 1938. Even very large animals like giant squid and megamouth sharks have only been recently captured on film, so the evidence supporting a modern-day megalodon simply can’t be dismissed.

Clip from Megalodon

Click to view a clip from “Megalodon”

The program was extremely entertaining and was easily the most exciting Shark Week show I’ve seen since “Air Jaws.” And not surprisingly, “Megalodon” received the highest ratings in the history of Shark Week. Unfortunately, as you may have guessed, it was all a hoax. Like Animal Planet’s 2012 documentary on mermaids, all of the nature footage and expert testimonies were fabrications. My wife and I hadn’t heard about the vanished boating party on the news because, of course, there never was a boating party. There was virtually nothing true about Discovery Channel’s “Megalodon.” But many viewers were fooled, and subsequently criticized the network for misleading and humiliating the audience.

What do you think? By airing a work of fiction–and presenting it as truth–did Shark Week jump the shark? Have the producers run out of ideas? Have they abandoned Shark Week’s reputation? Or were Shark Week viewers naive all along for seeking education through commercial television?

“So, You Pastor a Church?”

by Matt McKinnon

I'm no pastor and I don't play one on TV.

I’m no pastor, and I don’t play one on TV.

It’s a question I used to get all the time, mostly from me and my wife’s family members.  Good, God-fearing folks (for the most part) who simply assumed that devoting one’s professional life to the study of religion must mean being a pastor—since “religion” must be synonymous with “church.”  Why else would someone spend upwards of eight years in school (after undergrad?!) studying various religions and even languages few people on earth still use?

And while one of my three degrees in religious studies is from a non-denominational “divinity” school (Yale) and my doctorate from a Roman Catholic university (Marquette), my degrees themselves are academic, preparations for scholarship in the academy and not the pulpit.  But that still hasn’t stopped folks from asking the above question, and has also led to invitations to offer prayer at family gatherings, read scripture at special events, and even give short homilies when the situation arises.

Now don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with being a pastor, or priest, or imam, or rabbi.  Plenty of good folks are in these lines of work, many of whom I have studied alongside of in pursuing my education.  My wife’s cousin, in fact, is a Baptist preacher—a wonderful man who is much more qualified to pray and preach and—God forbid—counsel folks than me.  So the problem is not my disdain for this profession: the problem is that it is not my profession.

But the real issue here is not what I do but rather the underlying problem that most folks have in understanding exactly what “religious studies” does—and how it is different from “theology” and the practice of religion.

This was never as clear as in the recent Fox News interview of religious studies scholar Reza Aslan about his new book on Jesus, “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.”

.

Lauren Green

Lauren Green

Never mind that Fox religion correspondent Lauren Green gives a horrible interview, spending much more time on what critics have to say about Aslan’s book than on the book itself.  For while this may be bad, even worse is that it becomes painfully clear that she probably has not read the book—and may have not even perused even the first two pages.  But what is most troubling here is that the RELIGION CORRESPONDENT for a major news network is working with the same misunderstandings and ignorance of what exactly religious studies is and what religious studies scholars do as regular folks who are not RELIGION CORRESPONDENTS.

Zealot

Aslan’s Zealot

Her assumption is that the story here, the big scoop, the underlying issue with Aslan’s book about Jesus is that…the author is a Muslim.  And not just a Muslim, but one who used to be a Christian.  Despite Aslan’s continued attempts to point out that he has a PhD in religious studies, has been studying religions for over twenty years, and has written many books dealing with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and even Hinduism, Ms. Green cannot get past what she—and many of his critics—see as the real issue: he is a Muslim writing a “controversial” book about Jesus—the “founder” of Christianity as she calls him.

Now I put “controversial” in quotations because, as anyone even remotely aware of scholarship on Christianity knows, the most “controversial” of his claims are nothing new: scholars since the 19th century have been coming to many of the same conclusions that Aslan has come to.  And I put “founder” in quotations as well, since these same folks even tangentially aware of New Testament scholarship know that Jesus himself lived and died a Jew, and never “founded” a new religion.

Dr. Reza Aslan

Dr. Reza Aslan

Not being aware of any of this is not really the problem, but rather a symptom of the bigger issue: Ms. Green, like many folks, simply does not understand what the discipline of religious studies is, or what religious studies scholars do.  So why would she be aware of information that is common knowledge for any undergrad who has sat through a survey course on the introduction to religion at a mainstream college or university?

Except that, uh, she is the RELIGION CORRESPONDENT for a major news network, and would thus benefit from knowing not just about the practice of religion, but about the way it is studied as well.

Now, my own mother has been guilty of this (though she’s no RELIGION CORRESPONDENT), one time explaining to me why she would rather have a class on Buddhism, for example, taught by a practicing Buddhist, or on Islam by a practicing Muslim.  And here we have the crux of the problem: for the role of a scholar is not simply to explain what folks believe or what a religion teaches, though that is part of it.  The role of a scholar is also to research and discover if what a religion says about something has any historical veracity or is problematic or even inconsistent.  Our role is to apply critical analysis to our subjects, the same way a scholar of English Literature or Russian History or Quantum Physics would.

Scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures, for example, have argued that there are two competing and contradictory creation stories in Genesis, that the book of Isaiah was composed by at least three authors, that the genealogical narratives in Matthew and Luke disagree, and that Paul only actually composed about half of the letters in the New Testament that bear his name.  And you will find all of these ideas routinely taught in secular state schools like UNCG as well as mainstream seminaries like Princeton and Wake Forest.

It just doesn’t matter what one’s religion is, or even if they have one.  Some of the best and most reliable books on New Testament subjects have been written by Roman Catholics, Protestants, atheists, Jews, Women, and yes, even Muslims.  One’s personal religion simply has no place in scholarship, anymore than being a Christian or Jew or Muslim would affect the way that a biologist studies cells or an astronomer studies space.

Scholarly Books about Jesus

Scholarly Books about Jesus

One’s religion, or lack thereof, may point someone in certain directions and may inform what interests him or her—and may even make what they do a vocation or calling.  It may inform their training and influence their methodologies.  Or it may not.  But it doesn’t make them qualified to study one religion or prevent them from studying another.  One’s training—including those degrees that Dr. Aslan pointed out—is what does that.

As my first religion professor Henry Levinson (a Festive-Naturalist Jew who didn’t hold the traditional concept of God adhered to by his religion) often put it: “It doesn’t take one to know one; it takes one to be one.”

Dr. Henry Levinson

Dr. Henry Levinson

Religious studies scholars are trying to “know” religions and religious people, not “be” them, for that is something tangential at best to our roles as scholars.

So this should be the official motto of all religious studies scholarship, where what one’s religion “is” has no bearing on the quality of the scholarship they do.

Anything less is not scholarship.

It’s simply propaganda.

Actually, We Can All Just Get Along…And Do Most Of the Time.

by Wade Maki

Who’s out to destroy America? If you believed everything you hear over the next few weeks the answer is just about everyone. Greedy capitalists, lazy moochers, and every candidate running in a competitive race are just some of dangers. Of course if you watch the news you’d also conclude that we’re all about to die from the weather (hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, snow oh my), can’t swim in the oceans (sharks), can’t fly (crashes), and we will be the victims of terrorism, swine flu, computer hacking, identity theft, or sudden onset obesity any minute now.

Similar to how the news exaggerates the risks of daily living, campaigns exaggerate the evil intent of every “other” in society. Luckily, when disasters really do occur most of us get along pretty well (and days without disasters too).

Image

Are the presidential candidates really villains from Batman?

Our predisposition towards cooperation became especially clear to me this summer during a trip to visit family in the hills of northwest Arkansas. On the surface this is a unique region, as you learn when flying into what appears to be nowhere. You land at a very large and modern airport (thanks to Wal-Mart headquarters being in the area). The many small communities contain people from all over the country—most notably retirees seeking warm weather, affordable living, low taxes and a large supply of golf courses.

We stayed with relatives up winding roads in the hills filled with middle class houses and large trees. During the second night of our stay we experienced a very fast and violent storm. The power went out after dark and we experienced the “what do we do without electricity” quandary faced by those too used to technology. Luckily, I had an iPad to light the way until we found a flashlight and got candles lit. As there wasn’t much to do, we grabbed a flashlight took a midnight stroll to see what had happened.

Quickly we realized that this was not a unique idea as there were people roaming all over the neighborhood (in the dark the bouncing flashlights were visible for blocks). Trees were down everywhere. Not just small Imageones but massive trees lay across yards, power lines, and on top of homes as well. It was bad and everyone was making sure everyone else was okay. We hadn’t made it a block before running into a man with a flashlight strapped atop his head by his shirt and his long wet hair hanging down his bare shoulders looking for the chainsaw he had set down along the street. This was the first, but not last person, who in the middle of the night was already getting to work helping neighbors get massive trees removed from damaged homes.

All night and most of the next day we heard the roar of chainsaws as the cleanup continued. People from outside the neighborhood were driving around offering their services to those needing tree removals (some were professionals, others just a guy with a saw trying to make a buck). It is at a time like this you realize that the “greedy capitalist” you hear during campaign season is a good thing to have around when an 8’ wide oak tree is crushing your roof.

For most of the next day power was out (the company workers were doing their best) as a mixture of Imagevolunteers and for profit professionals assisted those in need. One elderly couple had a very large tree crash right into their bedroom. Luckily they weren’t home. Rather than wait to contact them, or wait for an insurance assessor, that same mix of neighbors and professionals got together, removed the tree from the house and put a tarp on the roof to protect this couples’ home from further rain.

There were no bad guys that day. Despite the different political yard signs around, no one viewed anyone else as out to destroy America. When something really bad happened it was amazing how everyone (volunteers, for profit professional, neighbors, etc.) just did what needed doing. As a microcosm of society it is a good reminder of just how well most things work (which is the real magic given how many things could go wrong).Image

Sure there are problems, differences, and our decisions about what policy or person to support can make things better or worse. For the most part though, society is full of pretty good people trying their best, in their own way, to get what needs doing done. Something to remember as you experience the drumbeat of doom from political ads and “news” outlets—We can and do get along just fine…most of the time.

Just Squeeze

By Matt McKinnon

I have a secret:

I love the accordion.

It gets worse:

I play the accordion.

Years ago, this would not have been an issue.  There would have been no need for secrecy.  The accordion was one of the most popular instruments for kids all over the country to learn.  From the end of World War Two until the late fifties and early sixties, the accordion was king.

And then came Elvis Presley, Rock and Roll, and the electric guitar, which moved from being a percussion instrument playing rhythm accompaniment to the lead guitar of contemporary pop music.  (And the reason that “Guitar Hero” is a billion-dollar franchise and “Accordion Hero” a practical joke gone viral.)

It turns out, once your typical American kid got one look at the now iconic Elvis with his guitar, accordion sales plummeted, as did the instrument’s standing in popular music culture.

But the accordion didn’t just lose its popularity.  That would have been fine.  I rather enjoy having interests and hobbies that are not popular.  But the accordion is not just “not popular,” or even unpopular: it has taken on the persona of nerdiness, the epitome of square and boring, old fashioned, and lame.
It has spawned a minor industry of jokes:

What’s a gentleman?  Somebody who knows how to play the accordion, but doesn’t.

What’s the range of an accordion?  Twenty yards if you’ve got a good arm!

What’s the difference between an accordion player and a terrorist?  Terrorists have sympathizers.

What’s the difference between an onion and an accordion?   No one cries when you chop up an accordion.

What’s the difference between an accordion and a concertina?  The accordion takes longer to burn.

What do you call ten accordions at the bottom of the ocean?  A good start.

What’s the difference between a chainsaw and an accordion?  A chainsaw can be tuned.

What’s the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead accordion player in the road?  There are skid marks in front of the skunk.

You get the picture.

Or maybe you don’t.  So here’s a couple of pictures of “famous” accordion players from popular culture to help.

Not exactly an instrument that exudes “cool.”  Or anything other than disdain.

Or is it?

It turns out, the accordion is one of the most popular instruments in the world, and is well represented in musical styles as diverse as classical, traditional or folk, and even pop and rock.  Predominantly used in the traditional music of everyday people, the accordion is central not only to the polka-dominated styles of Central and Eastern Europe, French Bal-musette, various Italian folk styles, and traditional English (Morris), Scottish, and Irish music, but also to the  Klezmer sound of Ashkanazi Jews, French-derived Quebecois music, the Cajun music and blues-derived Zydeco of Louisiana and the Gulf coast, the conjunto sound of the Tejaň̃o and Norteno music of south and west Texas and northern Mexico, the Forró music of Brazil, Cumbia and Vallenato from Columbia, the Cueca of Chile, the Argentinean tango, the Merengue of the Dominican Republic, and even the Trot music of South Korea.

In fact, the country that not only produces the most accordions but also has the largest number of accordion players in the world is China.  Yes, China.

So I’ll see your Steve Urkel and raise you a Clifton Chenier.  You be the judge of if he’s cool or not.

That’s Entertainment!?

By Ann Millett-Gallant

I will admit, I like to watch TV. I study and teach about mass media representations, for example in my BLS course, Representing Women, so it is partially a professional interest, but also, I enjoy the entertainment. I have been watching all the new shows this Fall and can say I like “Two Broke Girls” and “Pan Am” the best so far. I have also appreciated the new episodes of “The Closer” and “Grey’s Anatomy.” I am a little confused by “Once Upon a Time.” It is a fairy tale show, but somehow, the plot seems more fitting to a movie.

But perhaps this is the direction television is taking – towards fantasy, or overly dramatic crime dramas. Shows based on mid 20th century are also popular, such as “Pan Am” or “Mad Men.” Basically, viewers desire to be transported to another time or place. Or perhaps fictional television is trying to distinguish itself from “Reality” TV. This morning, I was disgusted to hear about Kim Kardashian’s upcoming divorce, after a huge, media spectacle wedding and 72 days of marriage. I was not surprised and would not have taken such offense, except the story was profiled on NBC’s “Today Show” as important national news. They then featured a panel of legal “experts” to analyze whether it was legitimate or rather a huge media ploy. One of these “experts” was Star Jones, who after her scandalous exit from “The View,” dramatic weight loss, and own short marriage, redeemed her media status by appearing on “The Apprentice.” But I am getting off topic. Apparently, the Kardashian wedding cost $10 million and the couple has accrued up to $20 million since for appearances and publicity projects. And THIS is “reality” TV? The obvious irony is that all the “reality” TV on today is the farthest thing from the reality of the viewers. We are in an economic depression and unemployment is higher than it’s ever been. Reality TV seems less realistic and much more voyeuristic. Viewers watch so they can ridicule the “cast” of “Jersey Shore” (I use the term “cast” cautiously) or revel in the gluttony and triviality of the wealthy Kardashians, Hiltons, or the bevy of Playboy bunnies. On the other hand, many “reality” shows are about competitions, specifically ones in which the struggling artist has a chance at stardom (“The X Factor,” “American Idol,” and even “Project Runway”).

Other competition shows, like the aforementioned “Apprentice” and “Dancing with the Stars” seem like platforms for so-called “stars” to rehabilitate their reputations. It should then seem no coincidence that Dancing with the “Stars” is actually dancing with the cast offs of other “reality” TV shows. As television fiction, reality, and competition overlap, so does “news” and “entertainment.” Let’s be honest, real “reality” is depressing. The other news stories on “Today” were about the war, political debates, the failing economy, and random horror stories like medical mistakes. Maybe the news is just responding to their target audiences, everyday people who feel powerless and economically, and perhaps personally depressed. Maybe we prefer the “Reality” of TV to our own realities.

Is the Future of Racing a Thing of the Past?

By Jay Parr

NASCAR

As anyone who has made the mistake of taking I-85 past Concord on a race day knows, NASCAR is one of the largest professional sporting organizations in the country. Major events draw more than a hundred thousand spectators to the stands, and sometimes millions of viewers watching from home or their favorite sports bar. Total revenues are in the billions of dollars, and the revenues of the top teams are in the tens of millions of dollars apiece. It’s a huge business.

We tend to think of auto racing as being at the forefront of high-performance technology, but that’s not actually the case in NASCAR. The regulations in that organization dictate that the cars must be front engine and rear wheel drive, despite the fact that the street versions of those cars are almost all front-wheel drive. But it doesn’t stop there. The engines must have carburetors, not the fuel injection of most cars on the road today. They must be naturally aspirated, so they can’t have the turbochargers that are becoming so common in passenger cars today. They must have pushrod-operated valves, so they can’t even have the overhead cams found in a twenty-year-old Saturn. Far from being at the leading edge of engine technology, NASCAR engines use hundred-year-old technology that is arguably fifty years out of date.

Tour de France

Auto racing is not the only racing sport where the rules place big restrictions on the technology used. If you’ve ever watched the Tour de France or any other major bicycle race, you may have noticed that all the bikes look almost identical. That is not a coincidence, and it is not because the bike you see is the best configuration for performance. Nearly a century ago, shortly after the familiar diamond-framed “safety bicycle” took over popularity from the dangerous old high-wheeled “ordinary bicycle,” a Frenchman by the name of Charles Mochet designed the first commercially-produced recumbent bicycle. The rider sat back as if on a chaise lounge, with his feet stretched out in front of him and the rear wheel behind his back. It won several major races, and in 1934 it broke the one-hour world record when his rider covered 28 miles—and the wins and the record were all piloted by second-tier cyclists. At their very next meeting, the International Cyclist’s Union (UCI) decided that recumbent bicycles could not compete against diamond-framed bicycles in any major bicycle race. That is why you never see a recumbent bicycle in the Tour de France—despite the fact that they’re faster, more aerodynamic, more comfortable to race, and much safer in an accident.

Recumbent bicycles

In both of these racing venues—motorized and human-powered—political decisions have kept the sport from evolving toward superior technologies. The philosophy in both cases is to put the emphasis on human competition, but the technological ramifications reach far beyond the racetrack. In the past, the highly-funded and competitive environment of racing has led to major advances in both efficiency and safety. Your brake lights, rear-view mirrors, seat belts, and radial tires were all pioneered in race cars, as were many other features you take for granted, like the side-impact bars in your doors, the fuel injection that has doubled your gas mileage, and the variable timing advance that allows your engine to run efficiently at a wide variety of RPMs. Even on a dime-store bicycle, the gearing and brake technology were perfected in the racing world before trickling down to the kids’ beater bikes.

Restricting the natural advance of racing technology has a negative impact, not only on racing sports, but on the society as a whole. Consumer technology tends to mimic high-performance technology, and to benefit from high-tech advances in a trickle-down effect. Imagine how the world might look if the UCI had forbidden the chain-driven safety bicycle. Would the serious cyclists be teetering around on top of huge 54-inch wheels? Would we be afraid to teach our children to ride bikes for fear they might take a header and break their necks? Now, imagine it the other way, if the UCI had not forbidden the recumbent. Would most of us be cruising around on comfy lawn chairs? Would we stare in amusement when we saw one of those old dangerous head-first relics? Would our kids be more likely to land on a nice soft buttock instead of a fragile face or wrist when they dumped their bikes?

What if NASCAR technology had been allowed to develop unchecked? Pit stops happen on the clock, so it’s entirely conceivable that racing engineers would have poured a lot of attention into increasing fuel efficiency to minimize those stops. If they had been allowed to experiment unchecked, would we have race cars that could complete a 600-mile race on ten gallons of fuel? Imagine how that technology would trickle down to a little Nissan on the highway. Think about that next time you’re fueling up for that trip down I-85.

Cyclist Sam Whittingham exceeds 82 mph in a streamlined recumbent bicycle.

Dim Light and Other Hazards

By Marc Williams

About two years ago, I hurt my back.  I wasn’t doing anything extraordinarily physical–just some routine chores around the house.  The pain was significant and it lasted quite awhile.  After a few weeks of waiting for the injury to heal and for the pain to subside on its own, I went to the doctor, who referred me to a physical therapist.  I couldn’t believe that some simple chores around the house were causing me such trouble.  However, I learned from the physical therapist that the problem had not resulted from house work.  My injury was caused by bad posture.

The BLS program at UNCG is an online degree program and as an instructor, I spend nearly all of my working day in front of a computer.  While in front of the computer, my posture generally looks something like the image below.

Less than ideal posture.

But how can bad posture cause an injury like the one I experienced?  The key ingredient for me was time.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, my reliance upon a computer to do my job puts me in the 55% majority of Americans who use a computer at work.  However, my personal computer usage for work exceeds the three hours per day national average.  I’d estimate that my work activities demand roughly six hours per day staring at my computer screen, about double the national average.  But this level of use doesn’t make me unusual; the same Bureau of Labor Statistics study cited above shows a much higher rate of computer use among “managers and professionals,” (about 80%) and the rate of computer use among those with college degrees is also higher than the national average.    It seems that higher levels of academic and professional achievement correlate to computer use in the work place.

Paul Lieberstein (Toby, L) and Steve Carrell (Michael, R) on The Office.

As I considered how my computer reliance affected my health, I was reminded of one of my favorite television shows, The OfficeHere’s the episode, titled “Safety Training,” in which branch manager Michael Scott attempts to make office work seem dangerous–an obvious attempt to prove his masculinity to the warehouse staff who operate heavy machines.

H.R. representative Toby advises the employees to take hourly breaks from their computers to rest their eyes and he cautions about depression-related office conditions that include dim lighting.  Of course these health threats are exaggerated by Michael and dismissed by the warehouse staff.  While the examples are given in a comedic context, my experience suggests that computer work can indeed be tough on the body and mind.

After much experimenting, I’ve found that Toby’s advice on The Office is sound.  I try to get up from the computer every hour to stretch, move around, interact with real people whenever possible, and go outside.  I found that I needed exercises to strengthen my back and I use a few yoga positions to help negate the “hunchback” posture I use at my desk.  The routine could use some variety so I’m always looking for new ideas.  I’ve often wondered how my colleagues–and our students–deal with the effects of computer use.   Any tips?