Let's talk about "talk about"

[Doc Holliday]

I think my biggest problem with Talk About always has been that, to me, it sounds like the reporter is saying "I have a hole for a quote in the story I wrote during the fourth quarter of your game and I need a quote to fill it. And if your quote doesn't fit, I'll tell someone else to talk about it." As I said before, I'm certainly guilty of this exact thing.

I also can't help but think of the respect/lack of respect of it. Just saying Talk About feels so demanding. I dunno, I know I'm probably thinking too much about it and no athlete or coach actually cares, but it has always just irked me.

I get what you're saying. It's not like a question is even being asked. It's more like a directive. Feels rude and inconsiderate, disrespectful at the very least. I know if someone used it with me, I'd give them a smartass reply.

 

[georgealfano]

What's better?

Talk about.....

OR

What do you think about.....

They're both an easy go-to when you haven't fleshed out what you want to ask and how you want to ask it. Is the first really that much worse than the second?

Yes, the first one is worse.
First of all, the idea is to ASK a question. Why is always a better question than what. Why did you send the baserunner and what was your thought process?

After World Peace, the health of my family, and the end of poverty, eliminating "talk about" would be my wish.

 

[Alma]

Yes, the first one is worse.
First of all, the idea is to ASK a question. Why is always a better question than what. Why did you send the baserunner and what was your thought process?

It is better. Again: It is better. But coaches often view that question - why - as a challenge to their authority. And they sometimes give ****ty passive/aggressive answers to it. Because, see, you, the reporter, are not entitled to know why. **** you, with your why.

But "talk about" is an invitation. Reporters perceive it as a command. In my experience, coaches do not. "Talk about" is the domain of TV reporters, who often want nothing more than a bland line for their nightly report. "Talk about" is a PR prompt. In my mind, it's bad for that reason - but it's not bad because it always elicits ****ty answers. On the contrary, it often doesn't. What's more, "why," can if it's in a press conference scrum, where the questions are coming at a coach from all directions.

I love why, personally. And I loved when why used to **** off coaches who gave pissy answers. I always thought that was telling.

 

[da man]

Alma, you just made me think of this:

 

[MNgremlin]

Yes, the first one is worse.
First of all, the idea is to ASK a question.

Really? I thought the idea was to get an answer from the person. How often do you see the question a reporter asked included in a game story?

 

[Alma]

Alma, you just made me think of this:

Right?

Here's what I don't get, and perhaps never will: The know-it-all journalists - sometimes precious longformers, usually younger, including every know-it-all at Deadspin - who love to pop off on Twitter and here about how ****ty and uneducated all of their work-a-day colleagues are when the syntax on a question isn't just so or a pissy pollyanna coach gets perturbed and decides to big-time a reporter. There are reporters who get a kick out of that, side with the coach or the athlete. I always find it particularly interesting when it's to come to the defense of a millionaire athlete or coach.

 

[Fredrick]

I get what you're saying. It's not like a question is even being asked. It's more like a directive. Feels rude and inconsiderate, disrespectful at the very least. I know if someone used it with me, I'd give them a smartass reply.

Exactly. Saying "talk about" is an order given by the reporter to the subject. It is horrible. I'm like you. If someone told me to "talk about" something I'd say, "Say please."

 

[da man]

Exactly. Saying "talk about" is an order given by the reporter to the subject. It is horrible. I'm like you. If someone told me to "talk about" something I'd say, "Say please."

Good thing nobody's interviewing you.

 

[georgealfano]

Really? I thought the idea was to get an answer from the person. How often do you see the question a reporter asked included in a game story?

You get an answer when you ask a question.

 

[Doc Holliday]

It is better. Again: It is better. But coaches often view that question - why - as a challenge to their authority. And they sometimes give ****ty passive/aggressive answers to it. Because, see, you, the reporter, are not entitled to know why. **** you, with your why.

But "talk about" is an invitation. Reporters perceive it as a command. In my experience, coaches do not. "Talk about" is the domain of TV reporters, who often want nothing more than a bland line for their nightly report. "Talk about" is a PR prompt. In my mind, it's bad for that reason - but it's not bad because it always elicits ****ty answers. On the contrary, it often doesn't. What's more, "why," can if it's in a press conference scrum, where the questions are coming at a coach from all directions.

I love why, personally. And I loved when why used to **** off coaches who gave pissy answers. I always thought that was telling.

I was taught to always use why, at least as a follow up question, in J-school. My professor was dead on right. I still use it quite bit to this day some 27 years later. Love the why question for the very same reasons as you Alma.

 

[MNgremlin]

Wow....Mike Silver (NFL Network) "interview" with Myles Garrett:

"You haven't met LeBron yet, but I have a feeling a meeting will be in your future...." (sticks mic in his face looking for a response)

How the heck is he supposed to respond to that?

 

[Alma]

Wow....Mike Silver (NFL Network) "interview" with Myles Garrett:

"You haven't met LeBron yet, but I have a feeling a meeting will be in your future...." (sticks mic in his face looking for a response)

How the heck is he supposed to respond to that?

Horrible question from a good writer

 

[BTExpress]

Exactly. Saying "talk about" is an order given by the reporter to the subject. It is horrible. I'm like you. If someone told me to "talk about" something I'd say, "Say please."

"Coach, if it's not too much trouble, I'd like you to talk about your team's performance today, sir."

 

[studthug12]

I don't use the talk about phrase unless it's in response to a short answer that really should be expanded upon. Doesn't really make a difference though how you phrase it. "Coach, you substituted Johnny Jones in and you guys went on a 10-2 run to really blow the game open? What did he bring to xx lineup? Response: Energy. Can you (I typically use this) expand on that (or talk about), what specifically did he do on the court to help blow this one open?

 

[MNgremlin]

There are some interview subjects who struggle with going into much detail if you ask them straightforward questions, but "talk about" can serve as a way to get the person to give more insight.They can give you in one response what might otherwise take three or four follow-up questions to get the same info.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Can you (I typically use this) expand on that?

I have used the "Can you expand on that?" question many times when I've gotten a short answer. It works perfectly and isn't aggressive or demanding. This is one of my fallbacks when regular questioning fails to generate a meaningful reply. Highly reccomend! ++1

 

[Fredrick]

There are some interview subjects who struggle with going into much detail if you ask them straightforward questions, but "talk about" can serve as a way to get the person to give more insight.They can give you in one response what might otherwise take three or four follow-up questions to get the same info.

If you say "talk about" to an interviewee you are opening yourself up to some bad things. For one, the subject might say something snarky like, 'say please.' Or 'no.' You've got to form a question. If you are going to do the 'talk about' thing I just think you are lazy.