Can you talk about?

[StevieNicks]

How about:

What's your opinion of Kingman's performance?

But that's as softball a question as any. If it was a really good/really bad performance the answer is predictable.

Talk about is a scene setter.

When you fall off the pedestal you fall hard, my friend.

Why don't you tell me how you feel.

I dunno. I just poured myself a drink. I'm trying to deal with the fact that Superman has his kryptonite ... kryptonite indeed.

Oh well. I suppose I'll have to find another secret admirer with lower standards.

Can you talk about that? ;D

 

[Write-brained]

How about:

What's your opinion of Kingman's performance?

But that's as softball a question as any. If it was a really good/really bad performance the answer is predictable.

Talk about is a scene setter.

When you fall off the pedestal you fall hard, my friend.

Why don't you tell me how you feel.

I dunno. I just poured myself a drink. I'm trying to deal with the fact that Superman has his kryptonite ... kryptonite indeed.

Oh well. I suppose I'll have to find another secret admirer with lower standards.

Can you talk about that? ;D

No comment.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

I love how some people ask only the very best questions. Sometimes talking about something is exactly what someone needs for a story. And in fact, asking "can you talk about the thinking behind such and such a play....?" is a question. Can you talk about it?

 

[StevieNicks]

I love how some people ask only the very best questions. Sometimes talking about something is exactly what someone needs for a story. And in fact, asking "can you talk about the thinking behind such and such a play....?" is a question. Can you talk about it?

I also believe someone can ask a direct question in five attempts.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

I phrase questions however I think will get me the info I need. I never use "talk about..." myself, but if it works for someone else, so be it. I just worry about getting the stuff I need for my job. Whatever anyone else needs, I don't care.

 

[novelist_wannabe]

I hate "Talk about the way your team played." I would much rather ask, "Would you talk a little bit about the way your team played?"

We're not commanding them. We're questioning them. At the very least, can we ask them a real question?

Is there really a difference? Do you think the person you're asking (commanding) really takes note how you word it? I think it's almost a little subconscious thing we do and it gives the coach/player a feeling of freedom to talk, but really they are going to be talking about whatever we ask after we say "Can you talk about..."

Yeah, sometimes they do pay attention to how it's worded. As an icebreaker, "Can you talk about ...?" is fine, particularly in a group situation. It often facilitates some back and forth between the player/coach and the writers. It's non-threatening, and given that they are required to talk to us, sometimes against their will, that's an important point.

 

[daemon]

One of my biggest pet peeves.

Ask a ****ing question.

Problem is, many people are simply looking for quotes to plug into their stories/newscasts rather than looking for actual information.

You've got an entire game. If you don't have one legitimate question about what you saw, you probably aren't watching intently enough.

Instead of: "Kobe, talk about how well you guys played in the third quarter."

Why not: "Kobe, it seemed like you guys played much better in the third quarter - what was different about that quarter than the first two?"

And to whoever said that asking a pointed question to a coach might result in him walking out. . .

Your job isn't to protect the emotional psyche of the coach. It's to get information and relate it to the public. And if the coach walks out after the first question, which i have never, ever seen happen, then you've got some great color for your story.

 

[Stone Cane]

Anybody who swears by some sort of absolute rule about how and how not to ask questions has never covered a pro beat.

How late did that game end? There were guys in the interview room who were sweating out trying to get one or two quotes as fast as possible and then getting back and filing before deadline. If you've been in that situation, all you care about is getting the quotes you need, pounding them in and sending.

All these rules sound great and make sense when you're in JO 101 or if you've never been under the gun in that situation.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

My biggest pet peeve is when no question is asked.

"Crazy fourth quarter." Almost always a TV or radio guy.

As far as the "Can you talk about" intro, I agree it's not ideal, but with some of the athletes out there, it's almost the only way you can go, especially if you're on a tight deadline.

I usually only use it about a specific situation from a game, rather than, "Can you talk about the win."

"Can you talk about the impact of Samuel's interception?"

 

[Ohiowriter]

Quite often, "talk about..." comes from people who need soundbytes and they want them quick and clean. However, two things from last night's presser were of interest to me. One as Phil Jackson kept saying "it's not over, it's not over" and not answering the question, I believe Mike Breshnahan of the LA Times responded by saying: "Yeah, you said that" and then re-asked his question. He didn't let Phil hijack the point, which was strong work I thought.

Second, was Kobe fighting back fury at like 1 a.m. when a local radio guy who he obviously hated asked him something and he tore off: "We wet the bed and it was big. So big that you couldn't just put a towel over it and move on." I was like, whoa, that's an all-time classic yet I do not see it getting much play today.

 

[joe king]

My biggest pet peeve is when no question is asked.

"Crazy fourth quarter." Almost always a TV or radio guy.

As far as the "Can you talk about" intro, I agree it's not ideal, but with some of the athletes out there, it's almost the only way you can go, especially if you're on a tight deadline.

I usually only use it about a specific situation from a game, rather than, "Can you talk about the win."

"Can you talk about the impact of Samuel's interception?"

Ding, ding, ding!!

And we have a winner.

See, the issue here shouldn't be those two little words, ``talk about.'' The issue is asking something that requires the subject to think and deliver more than a cursory response.

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

To cite an earlier example given here, what really is the difference between:

"Kobe, it seemed like you guys played much better in the third quarter - what was different about that quarter than the first two?"

and

``Kobe, can you talk about the difference between the third quarter, when you guys really seemed to play much better, and the first two?''


Answer: There is no difference.

 

[cranberry]

I've never understood the big uproar -- usually from print folks -- about using "talk about." It's just a way of introducing a topic and usually employed in a situation in which numerous people are anxious for the subject's viewpoint. Really not a big deal at all.

 

[playthrough]

Can you talk about how long you've been a black quarterback?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Early in my career I was covering a college football game and we were trying to interview the winning coach as he walked off the field.

He stopped in front of one of the local sports guys who stuck the mic in his face and said, "Fan-tas-tic."

The look on the coach's face was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

The sad ending to the story is that the tv reporter in question went on to have quite the career.

 

[playthrough]

I covered a race once where some guy stuck a mike in the winner's face and just said "dominant!"

Of course the driver just went into his usual stock litany of "The so-and-so (sponsor) No. 7 deluxe hatchback was great today, thanks to the guys back at the shop, blah blah blah," which may have also been the answer to the best question in the world. Sometimes we really don't make a difference.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

I've seen that "Fan-tas-tic" thing work before, providing the coach and the questioner know each other.

That's what usually determines the quality of the answer to a statement or a "talk about" or any question really, familiarity between the two involved.

 

[GuessWho]

I'll take a whack at that one.
You don't want to ask a question that gets a quick, dismissive answer.
"Can you talk about" is a polite way of saying, "hey, asshole, here comes my question, and don't answer 'yes,' 'no,' or 'we'll see.' "

Generally speaking, I agree. In this specific example, though, I doubt that would have to be a consideration. Doc's a good guy, and after a victory like that I'm sure he'd elaborate on damn near anything he's asked.

 

[Boobie Miles]

My biggest pet peeve is when no question is asked.

"Crazy fourth quarter." Almost always a TV or radio guy.

As far as the "Can you talk about" intro, I agree it's not ideal, but with some of the athletes out there, it's almost the only way you can go, especially if you're on a tight deadline.

I usually only use it about a specific situation from a game, rather than, "Can you talk about the win."

"Can you talk about the impact of Samuel's interception?"

Ding, ding, ding!!

And we have a winner.

See, the issue here shouldn't be those two little words, ``talk about.'' The issue is asking something that requires the subject to think and deliver more than a cursory response.

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

To cite an earlier example given here, what really is the difference between:

"Kobe, it seemed like you guys played much better in the third quarter - what was different about that quarter than the first two?"

and

``Kobe, can you talk about the difference between the third quarter, when you guys really seemed to play much better, and the first two?''


Answer: There is no difference.

Exactly -- on both posts.

I do love the example in the first post when someone just makes a statement. I've seen that happen plenty of times and it's a joke. The Patriots started this dumb thing when they were winning, always saying that they had to eat "humble pie" from Belichick on Monday after wins. This was about the greatest thing the TV guys ever heard and at least once in a press conference one of them would work it into a "question" or just something like "Bill's gonna have you eating some humble pie tomorrow." WTF?

 

[joe king]

Your job isn't to protect the emotional psyche of the coach. It's to get information and relate it to the public. And if the coach walks out after the first question, which i have never, ever seen happen, then you've got some great color for your story.

Obviously, you've never covered Bob Knight.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I've seen that "Fan-tas-tic" thing work before, providing the coach and the questioner know each other.

That's what usually determines the quality of the answer to a statement or a "talk about" or any question really, familiarity between the two involved.

Your job isn't to protect the emotional psyche of the coach. It's to get information and relate it to the public. And if the coach walks out after the first question, which i have never, ever seen happen, then you've got some great color for your story.

Obviously, you've never covered Bob Knight.

Or Mike Shanahan. Or Andy Reid...