Let's talk about "talk about"

Depends on your subjects, how many others might be also be in the interview session and, in some cases where applicable, the subject being interviewed.

Some will say what they're going to say regardless of the line of questions. Others will answer many questions by your asking one because most know what they are - and are not - going to say and others just as soon walk the obvious out there (they know the question is coming and those sorts are more comfortable trotting it out there as opposed to waiting for someone to go there). Still others will avoid saying anything of substance. In some cases, asking specific questions can make a difference, but getting this hung up on the issue is a bit much.

 

"talk about" is a television question that writers have picked up on. it comes from the laziness of knowing that the camera and mic put a pressure on the interviewee to say something, anything, because they feel the eye of thousands/millions upon them. it speaks volumes about the fact that it doesn't matter, for TV, WHAT the subject is saying so long as they have tape of him saying SOMETHING -- just to prove that TV was there.

any writer who has done a tv interview has felt this first-hand. i cannot tell you the astonishment i felt the first time i interviewed a coach with a tv camera over my shoulder. it wasn't a great interview, but i simply didn't have to work as hard to get a mediocre response. the coach felt the pressure. frankly it scared the fuck out of me. i like doing deep-dive research, having a conversation, circling back, pulling the columbo, scratching my head, giving up a bit of myself to establish a rapport. i like having to ask interesting questions. i like, in short, actually caring deeply about the subject.

with that camera, you don't have to care as much. don't get me wrong: when done well, tv journalism and interviews are unmatchable. but the trickle-down effect, the 'talk-about' syndrome, is insidious.

 

Seriously, this subject is ridiculously overanalyzed and matters very little in any scheme of things, including that of getting your job done. But if you must think about it, here are some places to start before opening ANOTHER whole new thread on what might be the most (over)discussed journalism topic on this board:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/62399/

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/86358/

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/38615/ ("Talk about" comes up about 2/3 the way down the first page)

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/31977/ (It comes up here within the first 10 posts)


Believe me, there are other threads where it's come up, but that should keep you busy for awhile as you figure out where everyone stands on this "issue."

 

No, that's not really it.

People say "talk about the defense" because the defense was the key to the game, and people want to hear what the coach has to say about the defense. It's not lazy -- it just cuts out a lot of the bullshit.

I used to cover two DI football programs. I cannot tell you how many times I got to listen to a print reporter ask "questions" like "Hey, I noticed that you guys were were shifting your blitz packages when they went into a 3 receiver set in the 3rd quarter." Which consistently got an "um, yeah" from the player or coach. We get it -- you played in high school, and think you'll impress everyone. Eventually someone would butt in with a "talk about..." question, and the interviewee would actually answer, and that would be the quote that got on the TV, radio, and in the newspaper article written by the guy asking the "hey, I know football!" questions.

Not a blanket condemnation of print guys, of course. Most were terrific. The good ones weren't worried about impressing the room with their questions.

 

"Talk about" drives me insane. And while I am guilty of going the other way (asking questions that are too long-winded) I view "talk about" as "I've got nothing really substantive to ask but I need a quote from you on subject X so help a brother out."
It's not laziness as much as a crutch and the thing is, if you simply take "talk about" out of the phrase, it usually is a question.

 

Then why does it bother you and why do you care?

 

Soon from Slate: "What we talk about when we talk about 'talk about'"

 

I think asking people to "talk about" is great because it gives them ample opportunity to "speak out."

 

Half? Try 75-80 percent ... maybe more ...

 

"Talk about" is basically an easy device to steer the subject out of yes or no answers.

If the subject is smart enough to formulate a coherent, well-thought out response, or dumb or crazy enough to blurt out something completely unexpected or off-the-wall, it can be great.

More often it steers the subject deep into the ghettos of Clicheville, with crap like, "we just played East Dicksburg football. That's what we do.* " or "nobody believed in us all year," yadda yadda, blah blah.

The corresponding problem with getting too detailed or specific in your questions is you end up leading the subject by the nose into the quotes you want.




*Rising up fast into 'You know what I'm saying' territory as the most jaw-grinding aggravating nothing-burger cliche.

 

I'm with you on this. It's no huge deal. If we want to ask a coach about how effective the bubble screens were today, you could say, "talk about how well you executed the bubble screens," or say, "why were the bubble screens so effective." Either way, you're getting the same answer. Sometimes, instead of "talk about" hacks will ask a question with so many specifics that the intent is to let everyone in the room know that you think you're an expert on Xs and Os.

"Talk about" is not something I get worked up about.

 

I was talking about "Talk about...." with another writer on the beat, and the the writer was going on and on about it. I wondered how difficult it is just to ask a question and not be so lazy. The writer agreed 1000 percent.

Less than five minutes later, we're interviewing a player and the writer's first question?

"Talk about......"

My jaw hit the floor.