Ask a damn question

[Riddick]

What's wrong with these people? I'm out covering a game cause I gave most of my crew the weekend off. And while there, mixed in with a bunch of reporters, I notice none of them asked a ****in question.
It was a bunch of, "good game coach. you all blah, blah, blah." Then wait in awkward silence for the coach to say something.
But nobody asked a question. It just amazes me that they did an entire interview without asking one friggin question.
And the worst was the reporter who said everything that happened in the inning, and at the end of his STATEMENT, says, "tell me about that."
Don't they teach reporting skills in j-school anymore?

 

[MacDaddy]

Don't they teach reporting skills in j-school anymore?

No.

 

[slappy4428]

There was an assclown today who asked a question in the postgame press deal, then spent another 30 seconds describing how he felt about the game...

But he's not king in this state...

 

[EStreetJoe]

One time I was with a couple of other reporters interviewing a coach and the situation you described happened... the reporter says 'good game coach, blah, blah, blah' pauses to wait for the response and the coach's response is "what's the question?"

 

[Riddick]

I really just don't get it.
And I'm sad that people are losing their jobs in this profession, but I really feel as though some of these firings are like trimming the fat.
because if you're pulling **** like that, you should have never been hired in the first place and you're taking the space of someone who may actually have talent instead of knowing the right person or whatever other bull**** reason someone may have been hired.
ok, end of rant.

 

[fishwrapper]

It is a waranted rant.
One of the acquired skills of this profession is the art of asking a question. We wonder why so many quotes in so many stories tell us nothing. Well, it's our fault. We let the object of the interview go on for what seems a soliloquy. The quotes are pointless and answer nothing. Most are cliche-filled.
Ask a question. If it makes the person being interviewed feel uncomfortable, so be it. If it makes the group of reporters feel uncomfortable, so bit it. It is your job.
Of course, there are tacts and and relationships that need to be fostered on a beat, but be a professional. Not a groupie with a notebook and digital recorder. You're not serving anyone in any capacity.

 

[TyWebb]

FINALLY! I thought I was the only one annoyed by this. I can't even count how many reporters I have come across that simply say, "Talk about this...", "Talk about that." Basically, what they are saying is, "I have an idea for a quote that would fit perfect in my story. Would you please recite it so I can use it."

I make it a strict practice to get my quotes by using the standards: Who, what, where, when WHY and HOW!

 

[chazp]

FINALLY! I thought I was the only one annoyed by this. I can't even count how many reporters I have come across that simply say, "Talk about this...", "Talk about that." Basically, what they are saying is, "I have an idea for a quote that would fit perfect in my story. Would you please recite it so I can use it."

I make it a strict practice to get my quotes by using the standards: Who, what, where, when WHY and HOW!

Those are the best type of questions. I admit I'm sometimes guilty of saying, "Tell me about what so-and-so did in (given situation)." But I always try to have a few follow up questions that include, "Why did you call this play/stay with this pitcher/go zone when, etc?" "Why didn't you...?"

 

[Mr. X]

I like to try to ask the first question and ask, "Your thoughts on your team's play in today's game?" to get the coach or manager talking, then ask a follow-up from what he or she first said. From there I ask, "What do you think made the difference between winning and losing?"

I ask a specific question if one play decided the game.

 

[slappy4428]

"Talk about" is fine as long as it's relatively specific. "Talk about" the game is not. "Talk about" the fifth inning when you rallied for three runs is better.

 

[The Rules of Golf]

I don't think "talk about" is ever excusable. If nothing else, you can say it differently to avoid looking like a nincompoop. Instead of asking player X to "talk about" about his grandfather who was a POW in WW2, ask him "what were the details/circumstances of that?" Elicits the same response. And as for "talk about" the fifth inning, ask "what were you thinking" or "what were you trying to do". Variations on that theme.

Merely my $0.02. More accomplished journos on this board may disagree.

 

[John]

I don't think "talk about" is ever excusable. If nothing else, you can say it differently to avoid looking like a nincompoop. Instead of asking player X to "talk about" about his grandfather who was a POW in WW2, ask him "what were the details/circumstances of that?" Elicits the same response. And as for "talk about" the fifth inning, ask "what were you thinking" or "what were you trying to do". Variations on that theme.

Merely my $0.02. More accomplished journos on this board may disagree.

I'm not more accomplished, but I agree completely. "Talk about ..." drives me ****ing nuts -- almost always leads to boring, bull**** responses.

 

[Moderator1]

I don't think "talk about" is ever excusable. If nothing else, you can say it differently to avoid looking like a nincompoop. Instead of asking player X to "talk about" about his grandfather who was a POW in WW2, ask him "what were the details/circumstances of that?" Elicits the same response. And as for "talk about" the fifth inning, ask "what were you thinking" or "what were you trying to do". Variations on that theme.

Merely my $0.02. More accomplished journos on this board may disagree.

I don't know that I'm more accomplished. I do disagree. This "talk about" has come up here before and I don't mind it. I use it sometimes myself.
And I'm not knocking Riddick, who is a good guy. I do disagree with this whole line of thinking.

We all have jobs to do and we all do them different ways, just as we think, talk, write, dress, screw, whatever different. My way may not be your way and that's cool.
I went to a game once years ago where the guy covering the other team was a very southern guy - thick accent - who called the coach he covered "Buddy." He called EVERYONE Buddy. So he starts with "Heyyyyyyyyyyyy Buddy, good game for y'all. Tell us 'bout it Buddy." I'm cringing, gnashing my teeth but thankfully had the maturity (rare, I know, for me) to keep quiet. It's the way the guy talks. Doesn't make him a bad guy.
I'm around guys all the time whose questioning method puzzles me, as I'm sure mine does them. So what?

Remember this - the point is NOT to have a question and answer session. The point is to have a conversation. People do that in different ways. When you are doing a one-on-one, do it however you want. When you are in a group grope, deal with the differences.



Added because John posted while I was typing - there is the perfect example. I love John. He is one of my faves on here, through his many different variations! But we bring different thoughts to the interview.

 

[slappy4428]

I like to try to ask the first question and ask, "Your thoughts on your team's play in today's game?" to get the coach or manager talking, then ask a follow-up from what he or she first said. From there I ask, "What do you think made the difference between winning and losing?"

Yet, your first thought is not a question because you havent asked anything. The second is very much so.
"Can you give your thoughts... " is a question...

 

[buckweaver]

Remember this - the point is NOT to have a question and answer session. The point is to have a conversation. People do that in different ways. When you are doing a one-on-one, do it however you want. When you are in a group grope, deal with the differences.

I think, most of the time, the main point is to elicit information and there are many verbal strategies a reporter can employ to do that.

"Talk about ...," during a postgame scrum, can be an effective way to get a player/coach's thoughts free-flowing. It can also work as a segue to help you catch up on your notes from the previous question, or prepare for a better follow-up question. So I don't agree with the idea that it's "inexcusable. Ever." Some people have their reasons, and some people know what they're doing.

Then again, there are others who don't have a clue about anything they're doing in an interview. They're fair game to be blasted. ;D

 

[John]

I don't think "talk about" is ever excusable. If nothing else, you can say it differently to avoid looking like a nincompoop. Instead of asking player X to "talk about" about his grandfather who was a POW in WW2, ask him "what were the details/circumstances of that?" Elicits the same response. And as for "talk about" the fifth inning, ask "what were you thinking" or "what were you trying to do". Variations on that theme.

Merely my $0.02. More accomplished journos on this board may disagree.

I don't know that I'm more accomplished. I do disagree. This "talk about" has come up here before and I don't mind it. I use it sometimes myself.
And I'm not knocking Riddick, who is a good guy. I do disagree with this whole line of thinking.

We all have jobs to do and we all do them different ways, just as we think, talk, write, dress, screw, whatever different. My way may not be your way and that's cool.
I went to a game once years ago where the guy covering the other team was a very southern guy - thick accent - who called the coach he covered "Buddy." He called EVERYONE Buddy. So he starts with "Heyyyyyyyyyyyy Buddy, good game for y'all. Tell us 'bout it Buddy." I'm cringing, gnashing my teeth but thankfully had the maturity (rare, I know, for me) to keep quiet. It's the way the guy talks. Doesn't make him a bad guy.
I'm around guys all the time whose questioning method puzzles me, as I'm sure mine does them. So what?

Remember this - the point is NOT to have a question and answer session. The point is to have a conversation. People do that in different ways. When you are doing a one-on-one, do it however you want. When you are in a group grope, deal with the differences.



Added because John posted while I was typing - there is the perfect example. I love John. He is one of my faves on here, through his many different variations! But we bring different thoughts to the interview.

And I highly respect your opinion, sir. "Talk about" just feels lazy to me.

I'm not Gary Smith asking 80 probing questions in every interview, but if I want an intelligent answer I feel like I should ask an intelligent question.

 

[CentralIllinoisan]

I will say that "talk about" is something that can be used, at times. What is the difference between asking "What were your thoughts on that key play in the third inning?" And "Talk about that key play in the third inning."

I will never say never on "talk about." But the overall feeling on this thread is right on. I don't know how many times I'm in a pack of reporters and actually feel EMBARASSED by asking a question. I ask one, and all the other recorder jockeys swing around and stare at you like I just laid a log on the basketball court. I actually feel wrong for a split second, before realizing they're the idiots.

 

[fishwrapper]

"How do you feel...?"

What do you mean? How do they feel?
That is the worst question. Please don't ask it.

 

[Some Guy]

I have no hard-and-fast rule against "talk about" -- so long as it's specific. Frankly, I think it sometimes beats the alternative.

Q: "How important was Joe's grand slam there in the bottom of the ninth inning?"
A: "Considering we won 4-3, it was pretty damn important, douchebag."

 

[outofplace]

I like to try to ask the first question and ask, "Your thoughts on your team's play in today's game?" to get the coach or manager talking, then ask a follow-up from what he or she first said. From there I ask, "What do you think made the difference between winning and losing?"

Yet, your first thought is not a question because you havent asked anything. The second is very much so.
"Can you give your thoughts... " is a question...

Here's the problem with "Can you give your thoughts on....?"

It's a yes or no question. Obviously, you are expecting them to give you those thoughts. But it gives the interview subject an opportunity to jerk your chain and make things more difficult.

I think there is a problem with interviewers who talk to much and who fail to ask any questions. But as others have pointed out, you are having a conversation and whatever approach you use that gets a decent response is a good approach.

And there are plenty of interview subjects who will give you nothing but **** even if you do stick to who, what, where, when, why and how.