Let's talk about "talk about"

[boundforboston]

Malcolm Moran on the importance of actually asking a question: http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/moran-the-art-of-the-question/

 

[Rhody31]

Hate when people do this.
I'm guilty of using it now and then, usually when I'm doing a 1-on-1 postgame and in the middle of the prep kid's rambling I forget my next question and say "talk about" something so I can figure out what the hell I wanted to ask.

 

[Bubbler]

I've always thought this was navel-gazing bull****.

It's incumbent upon the interviewer to know his subject as best they can. If they respond better to a "talk about" question rather than a direct one, so be it.

 

[Riptide]

You should reach out to them instead.

 

[da man]

Maybe we should refer to the other 57 threads about this topic on SportsJournalists.com.

Talk about a subject that's been beaten to death around here. Geez.

 

[Schottey]

My pet peeve with the column is that twice there is clearly a question: "How do you prepare...?" and "Can you talk about...?" and Moran says "there isn't a question." Those are questions. The first one wasn't even egregious. He used "talk about" but also included a ton of information that he wanted specific response to. The second one may be lazy and the answer may be, "Yes, I can talk about it, next..." But, as a piece of syntax, it's still a question.

Did an interview with a draft prospect last night and caught myself using the phrase twice in a 20 minutes phone interview. Both times I got perfectly fine responses because I used follow ups and did more prodding. In that way, it probably has a little more room in a one-on-one than in a presser where you don't have that back-and-forth.

TL;DR "Can you talk about...?" may be a stupid question, but it's still a question!

 

[mediaguy]

Malcolm's one of the all-time good guys, and I agree with what he's going for here. I think it's semantics to rail against someone saying "Can you talk about xxxx?" and then suggest, as reform, "Could you explain ..." and "Would you describe ..." -- perhaps more polite, yes, but no less casual an entry into a conversation. Yes, "talk about" is a crutch we should avoid. I'm not a fan of 45-second questions either ...

 

[BB Bobcat]

The only thing worse than using "talk about" as a question is crusading against using "talk about" as a question.

 

[Versatile]

I'm sick of this discussion. Half the reporters who mock it are guilty of it at times.

 

[tmr]

I'll take "talk about" over some reporter rambling on for a minute trying to formulate a "know it all" question.

 

[Mark2010]

I get where they are coming from. They are going fishing, hoping the subject will say something interesting out of the blue. OK, fine. There are moments where you have the perfect question and other times when you got nuthin'.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

I've always thought this was navel-gazing bull****.

It's incumbent upon the interviewer to know his subject as best they can. If they respond better to a "talk about" question rather than a direct one, so be it.

100% agreed.

You don't get style points for questions. Ask the question however you want. You should be working to get an answer, not to impress other journalists.

 

[Sam Mills 51]

I've always thought this was navel-gazing bull****.

It's incumbent upon the interviewer to know his subject as best they can. If they respond better to a "talk about" question rather than a direct one, so be it.

100% agreed.

You don't get style points for questions. Ask the question however you want. You should be working to get an answer, not to impress other journalists.

Depends on your subjects, how many others might be also be in the interview session and, in some cases where applicable, the subject being interviewed.

Some will say what they're going to say regardless of the line of questions. Others will answer many questions by your asking one because most know what they are - and are not - going to say and others just as soon walk the obvious out there (they know the question is coming and those sorts are more comfortable trotting it out there as opposed to waiting for someone to go there). Still others will avoid saying anything of substance. In some cases, asking specific questions can make a difference, but getting this hung up on the issue is a bit much.

 

[AD]

"talk about" is a television question that writers have picked up on. it comes from the laziness of knowing that the camera and mic put a pressure on the interviewee to say something, anything, because they feel the eye of thousands/millions upon them. it speaks volumes about the fact that it doesn't matter, for TV, WHAT the subject is saying so long as they have tape of him saying SOMETHING -- just to prove that TV was there.

any writer who has done a tv interview has felt this first-hand. i cannot tell you the astonishment i felt the first time i interviewed a coach with a tv camera over my shoulder. it wasn't a great interview, but i simply didn't have to work as hard to get a mediocre response. the coach felt the pressure. frankly it scared the **** out of me. i like doing deep-dive research, having a conversation, circling back, pulling the columbo, scratching my head, giving up a bit of myself to establish a rapport. i like having to ask interesting questions. i like, in short, actually caring deeply about the subject.

with that camera, you don't have to care as much. don't get me wrong: when done well, tv journalism and interviews are unmatchable. but the trickle-down effect, the 'talk-about' syndrome, is insidious.

 

[da man]

Seriously, this subject is ridiculously overanalyzed and matters very little in any scheme of things, including that of getting your job done. But if you must think about it, here are some places to start before opening ANOTHER whole new thread on what might be the most (over)discussed journalism topic on this board:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/62399/

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/86358/

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/38615/ ("Talk about" comes up about 2/3 the way down the first page)

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/31977/ (It comes up here within the first 10 posts)


Believe me, there are other threads where it's come up, but that should keep you busy for awhile as you figure out where everyone stands on this "issue."

 

[PCLoadLetter]

"talk about" is a television question that writers have picked up on. it comes from the laziness of knowing that the camera and mic put a pressure on the interviewee to say something, anything, because they feel the eye of thousands/millions upon them. it speaks volumes about the fact that it doesn't matter, for TV, WHAT the subject is saying so long as they have tape of him saying SOMETHING -- just to prove that TV was there.

any writer who has done a tv interview has felt this first-hand. i cannot tell you the astonishment i felt the first time i interviewed a coach with a tv camera over my shoulder. it wasn't a great interview, but i simply didn't have to work as hard to get a mediocre response. the coach felt the pressure. frankly it scared the **** out of me. i like doing deep-dive research, having a conversation, circling back, pulling the columbo, scratching my head, giving up a bit of myself to establish a rapport. i like having to ask interesting questions. i like, in short, actually caring deeply about the subject.

with that camera, you don't have to care as much. don't get me wrong: when done well, tv journalism and interviews are unmatchable. but the trickle-down effect, the 'talk-about' syndrome, is insidious.

No, that's not really it.

People say "talk about the defense" because the defense was the key to the game, and people want to hear what the coach has to say about the defense. It's not lazy -- it just cuts out a lot of the bull****.

I used to cover two DI football programs. I cannot tell you how many times I got to listen to a print reporter ask "questions" like "Hey, I noticed that you guys were were shifting your blitz packages when they went into a 3 receiver set in the 3rd quarter." Which consistently got an "um, yeah" from the player or coach. We get it -- you played in high school, and think you'll impress everyone. Eventually someone would butt in with a "talk about..." question, and the interviewee would actually answer, and that would be the quote that got on the TV, radio, and in the newspaper article written by the guy asking the "hey, I know football!" questions.

Not a blanket condemnation of print guys, of course. Most were terrific. The good ones weren't worried about impressing the room with their questions.

 

[SellOut]

"Talk about" drives me insane. And while I am guilty of going the other way (asking questions that are too long-winded) I view "talk about" as "I've got nothing really substantive to ask but I need a quote from you on subject X so help a brother out."
It's not laziness as much as a crutch and the thing is, if you simply take "talk about" out of the phrase, it usually is a question.

 

[da man]

"Talk about" drives me insane. And while I am guilty of going the other way (asking questions that are too long-winded) I view "talk about" as "I've got nothing really substantive to ask but I need a quote from you on subject X so help a brother out."
It's not laziness as much as a crutch and the thing is, if you simply take "talk about" out of the phrase, it usually is a question.

Then why does it bother you and why do you care?

 

[Greenhorn]

Soon from Slate: "What we talk about when we talk about 'talk about'"

 

[TigerVols]

I think asking people to "talk about" is great because it gives them ample opportunity to "speak out."