Let's talk about "talk about"

"Talk about how you executed the bubble screens?"

And...

"What made the bubble screens effective?" (And then STFU and not filling the brief silence between question and answer with bullshit)...

Actually tend to produce very different answers.

The first "question" is nothing more than quote seeking for a section in a story related to bubble screens.

The second question actually seeks information, and insight, not just a quote. The difference seems subtle, but it is actually stark. People who find it snotty and "navel gazing" should try it out from time to time (the silence is important in the ask). I agree that people who want to hear themselves sound smart by asking long-winded questions are doing just as big, if not a bigger, disservice to their actual goals. That's why short questions where the reporter seeks to learn (even at the expense of playing dumb to a subject) can be extremely effective.

"Talk about" is an easy slip up, a lazy verbal tick everyone falls into at some point. No one needs to be mocked at sneered at for resorting to it. But the issue of making a subject "comfortable" is fallacy. It makes subjects broad and bland.

 

Why do people give a shit how other reporters ask questions or do their jobs? If it doesn't hamper your ability to do your job it's really none of your business.

 

Talk about your anger, TwoGloves.

 

It's a "best practices" thing. Talking about things that make us (as a whole industry) better or worse is the exact reason a lot of people come here...that and the snark.

 

Only if you follow it with something broad or bland. If you say, "Talk about why the bubble screen was so effective," you get the same answer. So your problem is not with "talk about..." it's with what follows. Which could very easily occur in the form of a question -- and we've all heard vaguely worded questions.

In short, it's the content that counts, not the construction. "Talk about" it what it is -- two words. Whether the question is bad or vague has far more to do with the rest of the question than those two words.

 

Well, it does bother me a bit when people get all high and mighty here on how others do their jobs. Why is this such a big fucking deal.

 

no one said 'it's a big fucking deal'. do you see how many topics on are this board? we talk about EVERYTHING to do with this business, craft, lunacy. if you don't like it, walk away. if you've got people talking for two pages like we do here, that means it's a perfectly legitimate conversation to have.

 

Why do people give a shit why other people give a shit how other reporters ask questions or do their jobs?

 

"Talk about" seems kind of rude to me. Like, hey man, I'm ordering you to talk about this topic NOW. Put it in the form of a question, people. Talk about is very very rude.

 

I don't like questions that blatantly are just quote fishing, to plug into a ready-made space in someone's story. A lot of the specific-type questions are framed to generate such quotes.

But the "Talk about" form often comes across as "Say anything at all about..." and that's what seems so lazy. And unproductive. Generally those are used for something that the questioning reporter seems to think is a positive. You'd be less likely to hear "Talk about the melee where your linebacker cold-cocked the other kid."

Pressers and group interviews suck in the first place. Lazy "questions" set and reinforce bad examples for what we do. So many of these athletes and by now coaches have been raised in a SportsCenter, sound-bite world, it's nearly impossible to get any lengthy or truly introspective or insightful answers.

 

Well, I've seen this debated on numerous threads. So it must be a big fucking deal. If you don't like my comment, walk away.

 

Really? You have evidence of this?

And why would the form of an interview question have anything to do with being raised in a SportsCenter-soundbite world, or getting introspective or insightful answers?