Let's talk about "talk about"

[SportsGuyBCK]

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

Half? Try 75-80 percent ... maybe more ...

 

[Starman]

"Talk about" is basically an easy device to steer the subject out of yes or no answers.

If the subject is smart enough to formulate a coherent, well-thought out response, or dumb or crazy enough to blurt out something completely unexpected or off-the-wall, it can be great.

More often it steers the subject deep into the ghettos of Clicheville, with crap like, "we just played East Dicksburg football. That's what we do.* " or "nobody believed in us all year," yadda yadda, blah blah.

The corresponding problem with getting too detailed or specific in your questions is you end up leading the subject by the nose into the quotes you want.




*Rising up fast into 'You know what I'm saying' territory as the most jaw-grinding aggravating nothing-burger cliche.

 

[hondo]

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.

I'm with you on this. It's no huge deal. If we want to ask a coach about how effective the bubble screens were today, you could say, "talk about how well you executed the bubble screens," or say, "why were the bubble screens so effective." Either way, you're getting the same answer. Sometimes, instead of "talk about" hacks will ask a question with so many specifics that the intent is to let everyone in the room know that you think you're an expert on Xs and Os.

"Talk about" is not something I get worked up about.

 

[noodles]

I was talking about "Talk about...." with another writer on the beat, and the the writer was going on and on about it. I wondered how difficult it is just to ask a question and not be so lazy. The writer agreed 1000 percent.

Less than five minutes later, we're interviewing a player and the writer's first question?

"Talk about......"

My jaw hit the floor.

 

[H.L. Mencken]

"Talk about how you executed the bubble screens?"

And...

"What made the bubble screens effective?" (And then STFU and not filling the brief silence between question and answer with bull****)...

Actually tend to produce very different answers.

The first "question" is nothing more than quote seeking for a section in a story related to bubble screens.

The second question actually seeks information, and insight, not just a quote. The difference seems subtle, but it is actually stark. People who find it snotty and "navel gazing" should try it out from time to time (the silence is important in the ask). I agree that people who want to hear themselves sound smart by asking long-winded questions are doing just as big, if not a bigger, disservice to their actual goals. That's why short questions where the reporter seeks to learn (even at the expense of playing dumb to a subject) can be extremely effective.

"Talk about" is an easy slip up, a lazy verbal tick everyone falls into at some point. No one needs to be mocked at sneered at for resorting to it. But the issue of making a subject "comfortable" is fallacy. It makes subjects broad and bland.

 

[TwoGloves]

Why do people give a **** how other reporters ask questions or do their jobs? If it doesn't hamper your ability to do your job it's really none of your business.

 

[H.L. Mencken]

Talk about your anger, TwoGloves.

 

[Schottey]

Why do people give a **** how other reporters ask questions or do their jobs? If it doesn't hamper your ability to do your job it's really none of your business.

It's a "best practices" thing. Talking about things that make us (as a whole industry) better or worse is the exact reason a lot of people come here...that and the snark.

 

[joe king]

"Talk about how you executed the bubble screens?"

And...

"What made the bubble screens effective?" (And then STFU and not filling the brief silence between question and answer with bull****)...

Actually tend to produce very different answers.

The first "question" is nothing more than quote seeking for a section in a story related to bubble screens.

The second question actually seeks information, and insight, not just a quote. The difference seems subtle, but it is actually stark. People who find it snotty and "navel gazing" should try it out from time to time (the silence is important in the ask). I agree that people who want to hear themselves sound smart by asking long-winded questions are doing just as big, if not a bigger, disservice to their actual goals. That's why short questions where the reporter seeks to learn (even at the expense of playing dumb to a subject) can be extremely effective.

"Talk about" is an easy slip up, a lazy verbal tick everyone falls into at some point. No one needs to be mocked at sneered at for resorting to it. But the issue of making a subject "comfortable" is fallacy. It makes subjects broad and bland.

Only if you follow it with something broad or bland. If you say, "Talk about why the bubble screen was so effective," you get the same answer. So your problem is not with "talk about..." it's with what follows. Which could very easily occur in the form of a question -- and we've all heard vaguely worded questions.

In short, it's the content that counts, not the construction. "Talk about" it what it is -- two words. Whether the question is bad or vague has far more to do with the rest of the question than those two words.

 

[TwoGloves]

Talk about your anger, TwoGloves.

Well, it does bother me a bit when people get all high and mighty here on how others do their jobs. Why is this such a big ****ing deal.

 

[AD]

no one said 'it's a big ****ing deal'. do you see how many topics on are this board? we talk about EVERYTHING to do with this business, craft, lunacy. if you don't like it, walk away. if you've got people talking for two pages like we do here, that means it's a perfectly legitimate conversation to have.

 

[mediaguy]

Why do people give a **** why other people give a **** how other reporters ask questions or do their jobs?

 

[Fredrick]

"Talk about" seems kind of rude to me. Like, hey man, I'm ordering you to talk about this topic NOW. Put it in the form of a question, people. Talk about is very very rude.

 

[Joe Williams]

I don't like questions that blatantly are just quote fishing, to plug into a ready-made space in someone's story. A lot of the specific-type questions are framed to generate such quotes.

But the "Talk about" form often comes across as "Say anything at all about..." and that's what seems so lazy. And unproductive. Generally those are used for something that the questioning reporter seems to think is a positive. You'd be less likely to hear "Talk about the melee where your linebacker cold-cocked the other kid."

Pressers and group interviews suck in the first place. Lazy "questions" set and reinforce bad examples for what we do. So many of these athletes and by now coaches have been raised in a SportsCenter, sound-bite world, it's nearly impossible to get any lengthy or truly introspective or insightful answers.

 

[TwoGloves]

no one said 'it's a big ****ing deal'. do you see how many topics on are this board? we talk about EVERYTHING to do with this business, craft, lunacy. if you don't like it, walk away. if you've got people talking for two pages like we do here, that means it's a perfectly legitimate conversation to have.

Well, I've seen this debated on numerous threads. So it must be a big ****ing deal. If you don't like my comment, walk away.

 

[da man]

I don't like questions that blatantly are just quote fishing, to plug into a ready-made space in someone's story. A lot of the specific-type questions are framed to generate such quotes.

But the "Talk about" form often comes across as "Say anything at all about..." and that's what seems so lazy. And unproductive. Generally those are used for something that the questioning reporter seems to think is a positive. You'd be less likely to hear "Talk about the melee where your linebacker cold-cocked the other kid."

Pressers and group interviews suck in the first place. Lazy "questions" set and reinforce bad examples for what we do. So many of these athletes and by now coaches have been raised in a SportsCenter, sound-bite world, it's nearly impossible to get any lengthy or truly introspective or insightful answers.

Really? You have evidence of this?

And why would the form of an interview question have anything to do with being raised in a SportsCenter-soundbite world, or getting introspective or insightful answers?

 

[da man]

no one said 'it's a big ****ing deal'. do you see how many topics on are this board? we talk about EVERYTHING to do with this business, craft, lunacy. if you don't like it, walk away. if you've got people talking for two pages like we do here, that means it's a perfectly legitimate conversation to have.

Well, I've seen this debated on numerous threads. So it must be a big ****ing deal. If you don't like my comment, walk away.

And despite rehashing the same arguments over and over on multiple threads, no one has yet changed anyone's mind.

 

[Joe Williams]

I don't like questions that blatantly are just quote fishing, to plug into a ready-made space in someone's story. A lot of the specific-type questions are framed to generate such quotes.

But the "Talk about" form often comes across as "Say anything at all about..." and that's what seems so lazy. And unproductive. Generally those are used for something that the questioning reporter seems to think is a positive. You'd be less likely to hear "Talk about the melee where your linebacker cold-cocked the other kid."

Pressers and group interviews suck in the first place. Lazy "questions" set and reinforce bad examples for what we do. So many of these athletes and by now coaches have been raised in a SportsCenter, sound-bite world, it's nearly impossible to get any lengthy or truly introspective or insightful answers.

Really? You have evidence of this?

And why would the form of an interview question have anything to do with being raised in a SportsCenter-soundbite world, or getting introspective or insightful answers?

No, da man, I don't have evidence. I have experience witnessing it though. And I'd bet that the "Talk about..." form is used far more frequently when the questioner is raising a topic that's positive, i.e., something the coach or player actually wants to talk about, rather than negative. You introduce something you intend to criticize via "Talk about..." and you're at risk of getting very little answer to play off of.

How about you go compile whatever "evidence" you think you need to try to prove me wrong, chief lower-case. Abrasive tone to those comments/questions is not appreciated.

 

[da man]

I don't like questions that blatantly are just quote fishing, to plug into a ready-made space in someone's story. A lot of the specific-type questions are framed to generate such quotes.

But the "Talk about" form often comes across as "Say anything at all about..." and that's what seems so lazy. And unproductive. Generally those are used for something that the questioning reporter seems to think is a positive. You'd be less likely to hear "Talk about the melee where your linebacker cold-cocked the other kid."

Pressers and group interviews suck in the first place. Lazy "questions" set and reinforce bad examples for what we do. So many of these athletes and by now coaches have been raised in a SportsCenter, sound-bite world, it's nearly impossible to get any lengthy or truly introspective or insightful answers.

Really? You have evidence of this?

And why would the form of an interview question have anything to do with being raised in a SportsCenter-soundbite world, or getting introspective or insightful answers?

No, da man, I don't have evidence. I have experience witnessing it though. And I'd bet that the "Talk about..." form is used far more frequently when the questioner is raising a topic that's positive, i.e., something the coach or player actually wants to talk about, rather than negative. You introduce something you intend to criticize via "Talk about..." and you're at risk of getting very little answer to play off of.

How about you go compile whatever "evidence" you think you need to try to prove me wrong, chief lower-case. Abrasive tone to those comments/questions is not appreciated.

I didn't make a case to be proved. You did.

I just think this is an overanalyzed topic that has no bearing on anything in the business.

 

[TyWebb]

BUMP - because Grantland just wrote a piece about the rise of Talk About.

The Worst Question in Sports: What We Talk About When We Say ‘Talk About’ «

As someone who always loathed and avoided Talk About, I particularly liked this line:

"The Talk About is a surrender to a superior foe. It concedes the unconcedable: that what an athlete says is not as important as the fact that he says something. Anything."

But I've certainly been guilty of Talk About, How Big Was and Walk Me Through. Sometimes a tight deadline does not allow for a well-formed question.