Let's talk about "talk about"

And despite rehashing the same arguments over and over on multiple threads, no one has yet changed anyone's mind.

 

No, da man, I don't have evidence. I have experience witnessing it though. And I'd bet that the "Talk about..." form is used far more frequently when the questioner is raising a topic that's positive, i.e., something the coach or player actually wants to talk about, rather than negative. You introduce something you intend to criticize via "Talk about..." and you're at risk of getting very little answer to play off of.

How about you go compile whatever "evidence" you think you need to try to prove me wrong, chief lower-case. Abrasive tone to those comments/questions is not appreciated.

 

I didn't make a case to be proved. You did.

I just think this is an overanalyzed topic that has no bearing on anything in the business.

 

BUMP - because Grantland just wrote a piece about the rise of Talk About.

The Worst Question in Sports: What We Talk About When We Say ‘Talk About’ «

As someone who always loathed and avoided Talk About, I particularly liked this line:

"The Talk About is a surrender to a superior foe. It concedes the unconcedable: that what an athlete says is not as important as the fact that he says something. Anything."

But I've certainly been guilty of Talk About, How Big Was and Walk Me Through. Sometimes a tight deadline does not allow for a well-formed question.

 

Why is "walk me through" or "take me through" so bad? Even if it's bad construction, it's shorthand and usually gets someone to talk about (no pun intended) their role on the play, what they saw, etc. These guys know the play inside and out and what was supposed to happen vs. what actually did happen. It seems like a good way to get them to explain it to you in simple terms, so you can then explain it to your readers in simple terms.

 

That's a good point, Batman.

What if what comes after "talk about" is actually a really smart thing? "Talk about why you started Bobby over Johnny at point guard" gets at the coach's decision, which may have been newsworthy, though you could ask "What made you start Bobby over Johnny?" However, "Talk about the fourth quarter" doesn't really get at anything.

 

To me, this issue isn't a question of how effective the non-question is. It's about the inherent entitlement in telling someone to "talk about" something. At some point, more media members need to realize that it isn't the athletes duty to make a journalist's job easier. Compelling them to talk about something, rather than asking an informed question, reeks of demand rather than request.

 

This is a good point too. It's probably not the best way to phrase a question, since it's not a question at all, but if you get what you need I don't see the big deal.

 

Damn, you're thinking way too hard about this. Only the most caustic athletes and coaches would even give a shit. Surely most of them are used to it by now. "Entitlement"? That's a bit much.

 

Another "amen" from the congregation. A big game turns on a spectacular play, I want to be able to tell how it evolved. And, a lot of times, since I'm dealing with high school athletes, the simpler the question is phrased, the better.

 

Fair enough. I guess, to me, it's not about whether they are used to it, or not. I just think there are more decent ways to go about the exchange.

 

There are. But I just don't think it's that big of a deal. I don't think most athletes or coaches would give it a second thought. Juts doing a job, and not everyone does it well. But I do enjoy when a reporter asks a truly asinine question and the coach calls him out on it. The reporter usually deserves it.