Sir, neither of those are questions, both are instructions

[Sly]

Just caught this pet peeve in Joe Maddon's postgame press conference transcript.

Q. Two questions: Talk about your offense; and number two, talk about your confidence going into Game 5.


http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=52797

 

[Joe Williams]

Great catch, Sly! One of the great but unappreciated losses to real journalism is the way print reporters have surrendered to and been overrun by the broadcast folks seeking sound bites. It apparently doesn't matter what the person talks about, beyond the most general topic designation, as long as the person ... talks.

Some of this is due to laziness or inability to articulate proper questions. Using the example above, I'm guessing the reporter "asking" Maddon about these topics either didn't know how to, or couldn't be bothered to, put together a cogent question about the Rays' explosive attack, and didn't know how to ask the second part in a way that would elicit more than a short or cliched answer.

If I never hear another "Talk about..." construction in an interview, especially a postgamer, I'll be a happy man. Of course, I've got no chance at that. But "talk about..." is only the latest variation on the much-ridiculed "How does it feel...?"

This would be more tolerable if the buffoons working this way would then move on, allowing reporters to ask real questions and even get some 1-on-1 time. But the teams and the leagues are complicit in this too, by the way they limit access overall. Often, this is all that we can get.

 

[Sly]

The only actual question I hate more than "talk about" is "How big was it?"

As in, "How big was this win?" ... How are you supposed to get anything of any substance from that question? "REAL big!"

 

[Joe Williams]

There are lots of bogus questions like that, that are offered up merely to get someone yakking than they are to elicit a real answer or, God forbid, thought.

If a question will only provoke one possible answer, it's not much of a question. Probably could have gone unasked.

 

[cranberry]

This used to bother me, too, but I've come to think of it as something of a short-hand version of a question, usually used at the very beginning of a crowded news conference at which news folks have already been sitting for 10 minutes waiting for the subject . The inquisitor wants to quickly get at what he considered the key topics, usually topics that interest most of the audience. I'd much rather have this than someone asking a convoluted question to demonstrate how ****ing smart he/ she is. Notice, too, that at least in this case it generated a somewhat interesting response with stuff that needed to be covered by a lot of people in the room:

Q. Two questions: Talk about your offense; and number two, talk about your confidence going into Game 5.
JOE MADDON: Well, first of all, the offense. I know our bats have gotten better. They've gotten a lot better, obviously. You get Carl back in the middle, Carl had a spectacular day today and so did Willy.
You could talk about everybody up and down the lineup, J.B.'s triple to right center, but Carl and Willy really set the tone for us today, also.
It's so nice having Carl in the middle of everything, and then of course, Willy is such an unsung part of this group, very good in RBI situations for us, has had a lot of big hits, and of course, the other guys just having good at-bats. We all talk about good at-bats.
We are at the point now where we are swinging at strikes. We're not expanding our strike zone, which is one of our hugest goals coming into this spring training, and I'm loving that part of it. But right now it's kind of contagious. Just like the lack of something is contagious, when you're actually doing something that well, then it becomes contagious in a positive way, and the at-bats have been good.
Going into the next game, we're going to take tomorrow off, we're going to come back out, and I want to see us go after it the same way. It was one of our more complete games tonight I thought in regard to all facets. I thought we made some really good defensive plays. B.J. in center field really roamed well, and you got to see his arm strength when he threw that ball to first base, J.B. on that slow chopper. A lot of really good things, and I was obviously very pleased with tonight's game.
Like I've been saying all along, I don't want us to do anything differently.

 

[playthrough]

Couldn't agree more, cran. I'm not sure I've used the "talk about" construction very often but in a deadline situation I'm not going to begrudge anyone who does. Whatever gets the ball rolling.

 

[Monroe Stahr]

I'm not sure a question beginning with the words "talk about" is always lame. Sometimes "talk about" is just another way of saying "could you walk us through" -- that last drive, that last hole, that half-court shot you hit. You're looking for as much information as possible and want the answer to be as unrestricted as possible. That's all.

 

[Stitch]

Talk about how you dislike reporters who ask a subject to talk about something.

 

[BrianGriffin]

I actually don't mind it. I object to the wording, but not what's often the goal with the "talk about" non-question. I like to have a coach's general opinion on something before getting into more specifics.

 

[Joe Williams]

Yeah, but it has become ubiquitous. On deadline, in large groups, to get the ball rolling or to hit on the obvious talking point, OK, sure, I've got no problem with it. But now you've got interns showing up in clubhouses, pre-game, in July, sticking a microphone in a player's face and saying, "Talk about this winning streak" or something inane like that.

It can seem semi-rude, a brusque command. And while I would rather hear it than some blowhard's soliloquy in advance of a question that the blowhard more or less just answered himself, it does seem like a dumbing down of what we do.

I don't blame one bit the players or coaches who respond by saying, "What do you want me to say about ----?"

 

[Sly]

I just generally thought it was weird because he said he had two questions, then threw out two lines that were not questions. If he had just said "talk about" right away, I probably wouldn't have thought twice about it.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

Our readers don't give a **** how the question was phrased. They care about the response. Or if it's high school sports, whether their kid was the one being asked.

 

[DanOregon]

"Talk about" always makes me wince. For one, it shows that the "questioner" can't come up with a line of inquiry and maybe didn't even watch the game, and two, it surrenders the "interview" to the interviewee giving the subject wide parameters to talk about anything. Neither shows respect for the reader or viewer at home.
Imagine if during a presidental debate an anchor said, "Sen. Obama, talk about health care" or "Sen. McCain, talk about the Iraq War."
I understand about "getting the ball rolling" but if you are on deadline wouldn't you rather have a question that hits the the key points of the game. "What was the turning point of the game? Why do you think you were successful tonight? What was something that surprised you about the game?
A better phrased question typically leads to a better phrased answer.

 

[funky_mountain]

i understand why people don't like it. i also understand joe williams' point about it being a lazy way to ask a question in a non-deadline environment. we've had this discussion several times, and i'm just playing devil's advocate dan, but given maddon's response to "talk about," do you think a question would have resulted in a better answer given the circumstance? obviously we'll never know. but like cran said, not a horrible response from maddon.

and i guess i'm being a prick here, but "what was the turning point of the game?" and "why do you think you were successful?" also give the subject wide parameters as well. there could be several answers to those questions and you might be looking for a specific.

we've seen over and over that "talk about" can generate a fine answer.

in fact, looking the transcript, the first "question" wasn't even a question or a command:
Q. It began like last night, the guys got a lot of runs, but the story seemed to be pitching.
JOE MADDON: Yeah, Andy set the tone for us, once again, really threw strikes. I always pay attention to the radar gun readings with him. He was a lot of 87, 89, which was really good, actually a lot of 88s and 89s.
When he's pitching at that velocity, there's a bigger disparity between that and his off-speed stuff and that's when he does really well. But primarily pitched with his fastball again, which I really love, just like Garza did last night.

you can also choose not to include the quotes from a "talk about" if it bothers you that much. i also don't want to be so stubborn as not to include a great quote just because i didn't care for the "question."

 

[nmmetsfan]

I prefer the more polite, "Would you mind talking about...?"

 

[Bullwinkle]

Our readers don't give a **** how the question was phrased. They care about the response. Or if it's high school sports, whether their kid was the one being asked.

You got it -- it's the question, not the response, that matters.

I've seen 20-second questions get two word responses many times. "Talk about" might not always give you the answer you are seeking, but in terms of getting a response, it's batting .1000.

That said, I hate "talk about."

 

[BrianGriffin]

Yeah, but it has become ubiquitous. On deadline, in large groups, to get the ball rolling or to hit on the obvious talking point, OK, sure, I've got no problem with it. But now you've got interns showing up in clubhouses, pre-game, in July, sticking a microphone in a player's face and saying, "Talk about this winning streak" or something inane like that.

It can seem semi-rude, a brusque command. And while I would rather hear it than some blowhard's soliloquy in advance of a question that the blowhard more or less just answered himself, it does seem like a dumbing down of what we do.

I don't blame one bit the players or coaches who respond by saying, "What do you want me to say about ----?"

It can be better worded like, "Coach, can you give your assessment on the play of xxxxx today?" to the same effect. That, I agree with. Much better than "Talk about the play of xxxx."

 

[imjustagirl]

Yeah, but it has become ubiquitous. On deadline, in large groups, to get the ball rolling or to hit on the obvious talking point, OK, sure, I've got no problem with it. But now you've got interns showing up in clubhouses, pre-game, in July, sticking a microphone in a player's face and saying, "Talk about this winning streak" or something inane like that.

It can seem semi-rude, a brusque command. And while I would rather hear it than some blowhard's soliloquy in advance of a question that the blowhard more or less just answered himself, it does seem like a dumbing down of what we do.

I don't blame one bit the players or coaches who respond by saying, "What do you want me to say about ----?"

It can be better worded like, "Coach, can you give your assessment on the play of xxxxx today?" to the same effect. That, I agree with. Much better than "Talk about the play of xxxx."

If I EVER heard anyone ask a coach "Can you give your assessment of..." I'd have pantsed them. Who asks a coach to "give an assessment?" Most coaches can't SPELL assessment.

 

[write then drink]

ok, and how many times have you been sitting there at a presser rolling your eyes at some TV clown's dumb question or "talk about" construction and then the guy starts giving a great answer and you sheepishly start writing it down.

dumb questions generally lead to as many good answers as great questions so i don't even care anymore

 

[buckweaver]

dumb questions generally lead to as many good answers as great questions so i don't even care anymore

Bingo. Your job is to get good answers, and it really doesn't matter how you ask the question if you get the person to open up.