Spoil this

The art of time-shifting TV shows for later viewing goes back to the days of the VCR, and along with that comes the secondary art of avoiding what happens on said recorded program. This is usually the case with live sporting events, given that you might be able to hear a score in your normal activities (via the radio, some idle chatter while out and about, etc.). You're bound to be spoiled, no matter how hard you try, but that's the nature of the beast because of the "live" nature of the event.

Nowadays, with the rise in use of the DVR, many people are also time-shifting regular television shows or watching programs online via iTunes, Hulu or many of the network sites. With so many people time-shifting shows, when is it OK to "spoil" what happened on a show.

This definitely came to a head on Monday night when (insert requisite spoiler alert here, I guess) Kal Penn's character on "House" suddenly committed suicide (expertly teased on EW.com last month without any indication of which show, never mind the character, it would happen). It was a major shocker -- there was no tease of it in Fox's promos, there was no news leaked of any cast members ready to leave (although we know now that Penn asked to leave the show to join the Obama administration) -- so it obviously took regular viewers of the show by surprise. Along with that feeling of shock and surprise, naturally, viewers took to Facebook and Twitter to express such feelings.

As someone who was time-shifting "House" that night (preparing to watch the show after the NCAA championship game), I did get a couple of somewhat cryptic tweets as the show was going on ("OMG #House"), but didn't think much of it. I'm as guilty as anyone of posting stuff from shows as I see them, although it's usually wacky lines or concepts from "30 Rock," "The Office" or "How I Met Your Mother." "House" usually doesn't draw that same type of instant reaction as it happens, but I let it go. Then, as I was watching the game, I got a longer tweet from a friend of a friend pretty much spilling the beans of what happened ("Why did they kill off Kumar?"). Part of me was miffed that someone would post such a spoiler, but on the other hand, I was definitely intrigued enough that I had to fire up the DVR to watch the show as soon as I could (with the tournament game a blowout, it was easy enough to make the switch).

Yes, the event was shocking, and even though I knew it was coming, it was still a huge surprise when it did. And it was a very sad episode all around (especially seeing what happened to Colleen Camp over the years -- I think she weighed more than Meat Loaf, who played her husband in the episode).

Of course the next morning I had to read about what prompted such a move (and especially since EW had teased it a few weeks back), and got the stuff about Penn leaving for Washington, etc., etc. However, the reaction to those stories were a tad odd in that so many people were complaining about being "spoiled" about what happened. Many of them apparently were still waiting to see the show on their DVRs or online and didn't appreciate the spoiler (especially given the very surprising nature of what happened).

This brings up an interesting dilemma these days, especially among mainstream or general-interest media, in reporting on the happenings during a TV show. I remember a college classmate taking CNN.com to task for posting what happened during the final "Seinfeld" on the front page before the show aired on the West Coast. That's understandable (although you have to wonder if you have to wait until after the show airs in Alaska and Hawaii). But do you have to hold off on reporting what happened on "House" the day after it aired, especially when many are getting spoilers on their Twitter or Facebook feeds as it's happening?

This whole incident brings up a rather odd paradox of today's digital age. The technology makes it possible for more time-shifting and on-demand viewing. However, it's going to be a lot easier to discover spoilers in your Twitter or Facebook feeds. (It works differently than many blogs and such because more often than not you're actively seeking the information on those sites; you get all sorts of things pushed to you on the social networking sites.)

More often that not, though, it's not really a huge issue unless you're a real fan of the show. I care very little about my friends' "Lost" updates, and I'm sure others could care less about lines I'm posting from "30 Rock." And even things like who got voted off on "Survivor" or "American Idol" beyond the overall winner barely create many ripples now. (Besides, there are live blogs of Idol out there, including one run by my friend Rodney, so there's obviously an audience for the instant analysis of what's going on.)

And when it comes to "event viewing," like a season or series finale, there is some reasonable expectation of being spoiled relatively in real time (much like a sporting event). But how should the "shocking but unadvertised death" spoiler really be handled in this "on demand" world? I guess we want our information now except when we don't want it now.

Bah hoopbug

I picked UNC to win it all, but was nowhere near winning any money in my pools thanks to choosing too many upsets except for the ones that actually came through. I will say that the March Madness on Demand product was great for tonight because I could watch the game on my computer while catching my other Monday viewing options on the TV. With the way the game turned out, it was best to find other options.

And with the game being such a blowout and my needing to catch up on other shows (including a very shocking and depressing "House"), I find no need to catch "One Shining Moment," one of the most overrated sports traditions out there. It's not so much the music itself -- it's a sappy '80s song, sure, but I can dig cheese like that. It's the fact that at its core, it's just a bunch of tournament highlights running about 10-15 minutes after the game has finished.

Honestly, as soon as the game finishes, I'm switching to ESPN or something for highlights, or to my DVR to watch what I missed during the game. When I used to work nights, that time right after the game was always a mad scramble to get things organized for postgame coverage. When I watched it at a sports bar, that was the time to settle up and head home.

On the other hand, you have to think that this love for "One Shining Moment" means people still love a good specialized highlights package. Just think about how highlights packages have evolved. I used to really love Warner Wolf's "Plays of the Month" or Len Berman's "Spanning the Globe" features once a month. Now you get them every night on SportsCenter with the top 10 plays, and even more specialized on Baseball Tonight with Web Gems. So maybe there's something to be said about the interest for clips of games that in some cases were a couple of weeks old (an eternity in today's world).