Let's talk about "talk about"

There are certainly more egregious offenses. I'd categorize this more in a 'pet peeve' category than a 'big deal.' And there is a sliding scale. "Talk about that pivotal play in the third quarter" is much less infuriating than "Talk about your emotions right now." But on that last point, I'm with you. I think it's only fair when a bad reporter is held accountable for their version of a bad play.

 

Tell me how you feel about that.

 

I want to say that I avoid the "Talk About" formula for phrasing a question. But I also want to say that I've gotten some of the best quotes of my career when other reporters have used it. I don't like it, but I'm damn well not above using a good quote that it generates.

In the end, all I give a shit about is producing the best story possible. What I don't give a shit about is who asked the best or worst question.

 

I think my biggest problem with Talk About always has been that, to me, it sounds like the reporter is saying "I have a hole for a quote in the story I wrote during the fourth quarter of your game and I need a quote to fill it. And if your quote doesn't fit, I'll tell someone else to talk about it." As I said before, I'm certainly guilty of this exact thing.

I also can't help but think of the respect/lack of respect of it. Just saying Talk About feels so demanding. I dunno, I know I'm probably thinking too much about it and no athlete or coach actually cares, but it has always just irked me.

 

Talk about whether it's appropriate to wear shorts in the press box

 

People who are married to "Talk about..." and are insulted by the suggestion that there might be a better way to do it, one that is more effective, can't ever be convinced otherwise. "It's gotten me some great quotes in my career!" is the usual refrain, and that's fine. It may, in fact, be true. But one is not a function of the other. A novice fly fisherman who catches a blue ribbon trout might have no idea why it happened, and he generally doesn't care. Because look at the trout! An expert fly fisherman who catches far more fish with a combination of artistry and skill and knowing where to look may still have his share of whiffs, but over the course of his career, he's going to catch far more fish. And better fish to boot.

It's hard to understand why there are better ways to phrase questions than "Talk about..." until you have the discipline to do it differently. Talk About is easy because it's meant to put the subject at ease. It's benign and non-threatening, and many reporters think that's good (even though it rarely is). But it's asking for quotes, not answers. And there is a big difference, and once you focus hard on asking questions that seek answers, not asking questions that seek quotes or soundbites, you'll never go back.

Answers are always better when they contain specifics, not generalities. Generalities are the death of good journalism. There is a very subtle difference between "Talk about what happened in the third quarter..." and "Why were you able to pull away in the third quarter?" but the answer to the second question is almost always better, at every level. The first one gives the power to the athlete to be as bland and general as he/she chooses. The second -- and again, it's subtle -- seeks a very specific answer the first does not. "Why?" In an effort to make everyone comfortable, to never risk pinning an athlete to a specific gaffe, too many of us have ceded too much ground. Why. What. How. Those are the three most powerful words a reporter can use to get information, and if you follow it up with "Can you give me an example?" you'd be amazed at how much more effective it is at getting subjects to open up.

"Talk about..." is a pretty easy target. There are plenty of reporters who practically throw tantrums when you suggest there are better ways to get answers, and again, until you do it and begin to see the difference, you can't be convinced otherwise. But in my opinion, stepping on your own questions, and throwing in the dreaded "or is it..." are even greater roadblocks to getting good answers.

Ask yourself this: How often do you hear this kind of question in a post game setting:

Were you guys exhausted out there tonight, or was it just business as usual?
Did you guys ever start to worry you wouldn't pull this one out, or was your belief in this team unwavering throughout?
Did you think that was a fair decision by the officials, or do you just not worry about that kind of thing?

I hear versions of that ever single week. It's so frustrating. In almost all of them, you end up putting words in an athlete's mouth.
"It was just business as usual for us."
"We never stopped believing in each other."
"We can't worry about what the referees decide, we just need to play our game."

I used to ask a lot of long questions early in my career. And looking back, I realize it was almost entirely meant to imply I was knowledgable. That I was showing the subject I really "got it" where other reporters didn't. I picked it up by watching veteran guys who'd been on the beat for a long time, who often used each question as an opportunity to remind the coach I've been listening, I'm really knowledgable about this and this isn't my first rodeo.

"Coach, I know you like to run the ball; that's part of your core philosophy, and you feel like if you're effective at that aspect of the game, you can really wear down an opponent in the fourth quarter, especially if Sheldon is seeing the lanes and making decisive cuts, but could you just talk about his play tonight because it seems like when he's hitting his marks and the guys up front are executing their blocks, it really makes your offense a bear to deal with."

How often to you hear reporters drone on like that? Half the time, the subject can't even remember what he's being asked to respond to by the time the question is over. You know what's a far more effective way to ask that question?

Why were you able to run the ball so well tonight?

Then STFU and listen. Bite your tongue. Don't fill the awkward silence with your own words. Don't step on the end of your question, throw another question on at the end of it. Put the onus on the subject. Colorless questions almost always produce the best answers. It's not always the case, but instead of the fishing analogy, let's try blackjack. You can increase your odds by playing a certain way.

 

Agree with every word DD wrote here.

It's uncomfortable to put people on the spot, even though it's our job, and we so often find a way to escape doing so. The construction where you give the interview subject an out is a particular tic that a lot of reporters have.

 

Totally agree with DD's take on the long question. After a minute, the subject just tunes you out, especially in a press conference setting. You might be able to pull that off in a one-on-one situation, but not in a presser. Most of my one-on-ones end up being more like conversations. Half the time I don't ask a true question, but the subject gets where I'm going, and we kind of riff off each other.

 

What he said.

And the whole thing about "or is it ..." brings back embarrassment chills. I did this so much when I just started my career. It wasn't until later that I realized I was just answering the question I really wanted to ask for them.

I think asking good questions is often a forgotten, and almost lost, art in the business. So much focus is put on the writing and hitting deadlines, justifiably so. Not enough is put on asking the questions that get the best answers. Talk About will never be the best way to get a good answer.

 

As stated in the previous post too long to quote, I find the "multiple choice" questions even more annoying. They are leading questions intended to show everyone how smart you are (I already know the answer) or else to fish for a specific quote.

At least "talk about" is very open ended and let's the subject say what he thinks, not what he thinks about what I think.

Just replace it with "what did you think about..."

Is that acceptable? Because it's really the exact same thing.

 

It seems the same, and again, the difference is very subtle, but it's not the same. Most people think it's the same, but over time, like playing blackjack and always hitting on 15 against a face card, you'll get better answers with No. 2. It puts the onus on the subject to be more specific, less general. It's an active engagement with the language, not a passive one.

I know this sounds like bullshit to a lot of people, but it really does work. There have been a lot of good studies that examine why people answer things a certain way. If you can figure out how to ask direct questions in a way that seems open and neutral — like you're not trying to guess on answer or lead the subject a specific direction — you'll get better quotes over time.

 

A couple more things to avoid:

-- Questions that can be answered with a yes or a no can almost always be phrased better. A lot of athletes will play along and give longer answers to "yes or no" questions anyway, but some won't. It's much, much harder to clam up if you're asking How, What, Why questions.

-- "Were you surprised by..." is almost always a bad question, yet it's one that journalism cannot let go of.