Letter: Don’t cross, sports theater

Editor,

It has recently come to my attention, that many newspapers are now using sports writers to cover artistic events such as theater. Perhaps they believe that doing so will put a new and interesting twist on an otherwise average article. The line passes from Ruth to Ellen and back to Henry. Wait! Simon just interrupted! The play is no good.

The set change is going on in the dark, we are all waiting for the call … and there it is! The second act is starting. Anyone can see that this is definitely a change in the way we view theater.

My question is, if sportswriters get to critique a play, when do theater people get to cover a football game? Surely they can bring a unique view of sports to the crowd. The lighting on the field was excellent, I could see every player clearly. The painters did a great job of making sure every line on the field was bright and eye-catching, it really aided the overall feel of the stadium. The final touchdown of the game created a moment when the audience could feel that they were the ones running toward the painted line, instead of merely watching the quarterback. Now, let’s be honest with ourselves, no one really wants a theater person like me to go out and cover the big game.

People want to read about the score, the players, and the game plays in a sports article. Sports is not my area of expertise; I have not studied it and I have never been on a team. I couldn’t write it, but a sportswriter could. On that same note, why would a sportswriter be covering the theater? They have not studied theater or been involved with it so they would not know what to write about it, but a person who is involved with theater would. So although reporters trading places may present audiences and sports-fans with a new angle on events, I think most people would really rather have reporters cover the events that they are familiar with.

Emily Heap