Let's talk about "talk about"

One thing I've had luck with is asking something assertively, but not in a way that sounds like a challenge or confrontational, necessarily.

Not:

"You went for it on fourth down there in the third quarter. Can you kind of give us a little bit of your thought process there? Were you just thinking, 'Hey, this is as good of a chance as we're going to get or (mumble fade)..."

This:

"Why did you go for it on fourth-and-2 in the third quarter?"

Full stop.

 

DD nailed it. Just think and be smart about it and don't be a dipshit. Lock this thread.

 

This is Grantland at its navel-gazing-est. It's an interesting piece for us to talk about and for a site like Romenesko or APSE, but not sure it was worth the bandwith it's coded on for a general-interest sports and pop-culture website.

Only sportswriters, English professors and associated grammarians really give a shit about this topic.

 

Precisely. Sometimes my colleagues get on me for questions like that, but I want to be as open-ended and non-leading as possible, letting the subject answer rather than answering my own question.

 

I cannot believe this topic has been resurrected for the 145th time.

Once more, with feeling: The problem most of you have is with vague questions, not "talk about." There is no difference between "Why did you go for it on fourth-and-2 in the third quarter?" and "Talk about your decision to go for it on fourth-and-2 in the third quarter." None.

 

Except one is a question and one is a command like I'd give my dog.

 

Can you talk about ... ?
Better?

 

It's ok that you don't see it, or want to see it. It really is.

But there's absolutely a difference. The human brain responds differently to "why" questions that it does general commands. And it absolutely gives you more control over the interview without seeming aggressive.

But again, each person needs to do what he/she feels comfortable doing. Just know — and I'm speaking to you, theoretical young journalist out there reading this thread who is probably just reading, lurking — if you learn the art of asking actual questions, you will get better answers over your career.

 

Every single thing DD wrote in this thread is accurate. All of it. Print it out and use it.

I'll add, too, that some people absolutely refuse to live with the tension of asking questions the right way.

Some of it is impatience and lack of forethought -- that'd be the "talk about" crew -- and more of it is that ego thing, either a need for a journalist to let the athlete know "I'm with you" or "I was paying attention" or a need confirm, as fast as possible, your own theories on what happened.

And there is a small percentage that relates to the coach being a tremendous jerk of a human being. For a time, I covered one of those "the media is full of experts, why don't you tell me why" guys and the temptation is to be conditioned to wring something out of the guy in an effort to help him out with fawning questions. That is an urge you have to fight. You don't work for the jerk. You don't have to lead him to water. You have to trust, on some level, that most people will read those kinds of comments and see him for the jerk he is.

 

For this subject to be so horrible and redundant for some of you, it's all the "talk about" at the Super Bowl ...

The dreaded ‘talk about’ question; Why it is bad journalism | The Sherman Report

 

This might well be the most overthought and overdiscussed non-issue in all of journalism.