"Theater for Twits" By Peter Funt

In "Theater for Twits" writer and television host Peter Funt addresses the emergence of "tweet seats" inside classical theaters. With the use of ironic commentery, Funt conveys his disagreement with the idea of theaters having sections where texting and tweeting is encouraged. Throughout the article, Funt claims that this "confluence of social media and the arts" disrupts the experience for the majority of paying theatregoers. He supports this argument by giving examples of some socially aware theatergoer's (as he identifies them) tweets. Tweets like "Music hall looks a lot prettier from the top balcony" as posted by withak53 at the Cincinnati Symphony are what Funt views as agitating.

Within his article, Funt utilizes the Aristotle appeals in order to persuade his audience to agree with his argument against "tweet seats". His use of irony and sarcasm provide very effective appeals to his audiences emotions. For instance when referring to the Palm Beach Opera's use of "tweet seats" he states, "Since you already have super titles to provide the English translation, why not also display messages from the tweet seats? They could scroll along during the show, the way CNN and Fox News Channel have been running distracting viewer tweets across the bottom of the TV screen during presidential debates". The amount of sarcasm loaded into those two simple statements serve to humorly sway the reader to agree with his argument. Moreover, his use of sarcasm displays his agitation at the concept of tweet seats and in turn elicite similar agitation from his audience.In doing so, he includes his audience in his argument and gives the impression that he wants them on his side. In addition to pathos, Funt appeals to the logic of his audience by questioning the reasoning behind theaters' decision to contain sections where communicating via twitter is encouraged. He questions this decision in the second paragragh where his states, "Are promoters so desperate to attract younger audiences that they’re willing to risk disrupting the experience for the majority of paying theatergoers The answer, in five characters, is 'u bet.'". Statements such as this imply that theater's don't really care about their audiences and push Funt's audience to oppose "tweet seats". Lastly, Funt builds credibility in the eyes of his audience when he uses examples of actual theaters who use "tweet seats". He refers to theaters like the Cincinnati Symphony and the Palm Beach Opera. Furthermore, he gives examples of other instances where tweets are posted at unusual times (ex. NFL players & sportswriters posting during games). Through appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos writer Peter Funt effectly conveys his opinion that the emergence of "tweet seats" is unnecessary and disruptive in theaters.

In my opinion, I agree with Peter Funt. Even though I am not a "theatergoer", I would definately be irritated with a person posting vague and absurd things during a show I am interested in. And besides, if the use of "tweet seats" continues, whats to say that it wouldn't move on into movie theaters? I absolutely would hate it if I'm emersed into a great movie and then get distracted by light reflecting off the phone of a person sitting around me. I'm pretty sure I would not be able to tolerate it. Peter Funt projects a very convincing argument in this article. And I agree that it would be very annoying and Funt has persuaded me that there should be no place for "tweet seats."