Talking about "talk about"

[sprtswrtr10]

Just browsing, I've seen one pet peeve thread (about "respective" and "respectively") and another one about terrible press conference questions. Those two threads have conspired to motivate my creating this one. I don't know if it's just me or what, but whenever I hear a reporter ask a coach, player, anybody to "talk about …" I immediately decide that reporter is one of two or three things: lazy, stupid or (being very kind) unmotivated.

"Talk about your bench play tonight"
"Talk about the way you came back in the second half"
"Talk about what it takes to beat a team like (insert name of team)"

Maybe 10 years ago it was mostly radio and TV guys doing it at press conferences, intentionally trying to cast a wide in hopes of getting their sound and pictures for the whole week. But now I think half the questions I hear in postgame begin this way.

Just once I want to hear the subject turn it around and say, "We came back in the second half, what the hell else do want to know about it." Or "It's not really a bench, but a bunch of folding chairs, but that's not what you want me to talk about, so why don't you ask me a real question." Or, at the very least "What about it do you want me to talk about?" just so the questioner might realize how stupid phrasing a question that way sounds.

Every once in a while (couple times a year, maybe) I hear myself begin to lapse into a question like that, and in that moment, while hating myself, back up and ask the question another way — "What happened after the half, it seems like your bench really got on a roll there?" I realize that's hardly an intelligent question, but at least it's not insulting to the subject, nor does it out me as in idiot.

To me, using "talk about" is equivalent to saying "Look, I'm an idiot, but I need some quotes. If I knew what I was doing I'd ask you a narrow question about a key moment, decision or momentum shift, but all of that is lost on me, so I'll just ask it this way and hope you don't realize I'm an idiot.

If anybody wants to defend "talk about" feel free. Or if I'm on to something, let me know. Or if theres a similar convention that drives you nuts (not in copy, but in the interview process), please share.

 

[KJIM]

I think we've talked about "talk about" in several previous threads. I'm too lazy to look them up, though.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

More questions like this please:

 

[lone star scribe]

"Talk about" is preferable to a long question where the reporter tries to show how knowledgeable he or she is and then ends up asking a question that the coach can answer with "Yes."

 

[mrbigles01]

Let's be honest, most people asking that kind of question are asking it in a situation where "everyone knows the score." Talk about your bench actually means, "I'm on deadline in 15 minutes, the story is already written and I need a quote about how well your bench played." The coach knows exactly what is going on there as does the reporter.

It's a gamer, it's not Pulitzer Prize winning stuff, its just the rote day-to-day. The quicker you can get in and out the better.

 

[BB Bobcat]

Doesn't bother me. Everyone knows what the questioner is getting at. You can argue it's not a question, so if he said "Can you talk about... ?" would that be OK?

What comes after "talk about" is much more important.

"Talk about the way Joe Shmo's throwing has gotten so much more precise over the past few weeks." is not technically a question, but it's better than...

"How happy were you to get that ninth-inning lead?" which is a question.

 

[writingump]

I heard myself saying "talk about" in a question the other night and inwardly cringed. I guess it's better to say that than the example Bobcat just offered. But "talk about" is kind of lazy, I admit.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

"Talk about your next job, Larry."

"As a matter of fact, that's what I spent all afternoon doing..."

 

[dirtybird]

To me, using "talk about" is equivalent to saying "Look, I'm an idiot, but I need some quotes. If I knew what I was doing I'd ask you a narrow question about a key moment, decision or momentum shift, but all of that is lost on me, so I'll just ask it this way and hope you don't realize I'm an idiot.

Don't worry, I work hard every day creating direct questions that pretty much get across the above idea.

Also, some coaches take better to "talk about," becuase some direct questions make them think you are coming after them ("What goes wrong with your defense in that second half?"). Those coaches are often insane, but that's the nature of the business.

 

[mediaguy]

I'll take "talk about the run defense" guy every day over the guy who spends 45 seconds prefacing his question, which can be summarized as "talk about the run defense."

 

[imjustagirl]

I'll take "talk about the run defense" guy every day over the guy who spends 45 seconds prefacing his question, which can be summarized as "talk about the run defense."

+1

"Coach, I know you talked on Tuesday about wanting to work on your run defense. And Johnson out there, well he rushed for only 27 yards against you in the first half. That's the fewest first-half yards you've given up this season on the ground. What did you do differently with the run defense?"

 

[sprtswrtr10]

I appreciate what folks are saying. But why can't "talk about your run defense," be, "you guys were good against the run today, why?" My point is, general questions are OK, but a lazy general question isn't.

before: talk about your bench.
after: did your bench surprise you today, or is that what you expect from it every time?

before: can you talk about their explosive offense?
after: is there a starting point to defending so many weapons?

I guess, I would say, ask what you mean!
Or, if you don't know what you mean, just don't say "talk about."
It's insulting. To the subject. But mostly, to you.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Talk about what tree you'd be if you were a tree.

 

[DanOregon]

I guess "talk about" is preferable to "Coach - your quarterback sucks, why do you keep trotting him out there?"

 

[ColdCat]

writer from another paper uses "Talk about the game today" in just about every interview. Nice guy, but it makes me want to strangle him.

 

[joe king]

I appreciate what folks are saying. But why can't "talk about your run defense," be, "you guys were good against the run today, why?" My point is, general questions are OK, but a lazy general question isn't.

before: talk about your bench.
after: did your bench surprise you today, or is that what you expect from it every time?

before: can you talk about their explosive offense?
after: is there a starting point to defending so many weapons?

I guess, I would say, ask what you mean!
Or, if you don't know what you mean, just don't say "talk about."
It's insulting. To the subject. But mostly, to you.

That's such crap. Insulting? Really? Whether you say "talk about" or something else, a good question is a good question and a bad question is a bad question.

I appreciate what folks are saying. But why can't "talk about your run defense," be, "you guys were good against the run today, why?"

Please explain the difference between these.

Your other examples illustrate where we agree -- a general question is OK, but a lazy general question isn't. Where you lose me is your insistence on a certain construction of the question. It's the content that counts, not the construction.

For example: "Is there a starting point to defending so many weapons?"
"Talk about where you start in trying to defend against so many weapons."

What's the difference between them? Is the person who uses the second really insulting the coach/player, while the one who says it your way is brilliant?

Talk about it what it is -- two words. Whether the question is bad/stupid/insulting has far more to do with the rest of the question than those two words.


As noted in a previous thread on this topic, the real issue is asking something that requires the subject to think and deliver more than a cursory response.

So the problem with, "Talk about your performance'' isn't the "talk about" construction, it's that it's way too vague. If you made it, say, "Talk about the reasons your short passing game was so effective,'' all is well.

There is nothing wrong with "talk about" as long as there's a specific point. "Talk about the offense'' is bad. But what's wrong with, "Talk about what you did to take advantage of the two-deep zone,'' or, "Talk about Joe Schmoe's emergence as a scoring threat this season.''

 

[Versatile]

To me, using "talk about" is equivalent to saying "Look, I'm an idiot, but I need some quotes. If I knew what I was doing I'd ask you a narrow question about a key moment, decision or momentum shift, but all of that is lost on me, so I'll just ask it this way and hope you don't realize I'm an idiot.

Don't worry, I work hard every day creating direct questions that pretty much get across the above idea.

Also, some coaches take better to "talk about," becuase some direct questions make them think you are coming after them ("What goes wrong with your defense in that second half?"). Those coaches are often insane, but that's the nature of the business.

This. Had a coach who, even when it was just me interviewing him, insisted on an "opening statement." He also took every question with any degree of skepticism as if it was an attack on his coaching ability.

 

[Mystery Meat II]

Talk about how long you've been a black quarterback ...

 

[BB Bobcat]

before: talk about your bench.
after: did your bench surprise you today, or is that what you expect from it every time?

If you want to talk about pet peeves, I don't like these multiple-choice questions. It's as if the questioner is trying to assert with the question that he already knows the answer, but he's also planting the other side, just to cover himself.

 

[sprtswrtr10]

I know some of us are going to disagree.

I like the either/or questions, because if the coach/player/subject agrees to your terms, he has narrowed his answer. And if he doesn't, he has also narrowed his answer. It works as insurance against blandness and as a guide toward precision.

As to what's the big deal about using "talk about" as a way to construct an otherwise focused and not lazy question, I guess I would just say — OK, no longer preaching, but simply stating a strong preference — asking a subject to "talk about" anything is to say to the subject, "just start talking, because I'm not looking for any kind of a precise answer, even if you limit it to what I said after asking you to 'talk about' what I asked you to talk about."

Also, this, and I tell my beat writers this:
You have to be your own expert witness. You have to be the paper's authority on the subject. Otherwise, why on earth do you have the beat? And given that, asking the subject to just "talk about" whatever it is, is to cede all of your own powers of observation and authority.

That's not being confrontational so much as looking out for your readers. If the subject really disagrees with your question or the terms with which you ask it, make him or her go outside those terms. Because, really, it's OUR story about the subject or the subject's game, or the subject's preparation, etc. It is not THEIR story that we just happen to be writing. To just ask the subject to "talk about," I think, is to give that standing away.

Not trying to be the (Seinfeld reference) "talk about" Nazi.
Just the way I feel.