Let's talk about "talk about"

[Michael_ Gee]

What I wrote on the Twitter/car crash thread.

"I'll push back on this: Enough with the "adults ask ****ty questions, too." Of course they do. They're human. And though I hate "talk about" and avoided it like the plague in my day, I got why reporters did it: Coaches and players often suck as quotes when you ask them direct questions because they're tired, insecure, and often perceiving of motives.

"Why did you decide to hold for the last-second 3 instead of getting quick 2?"

is better than

"Hey, coach, talk about that last possession and what went into it."

but I've seen - too many times to count - the second question (which isn't even a question!) get a more complete response because it's not a question, but an invitation for the coach to share his perspective on the last possession without having to shoulder the actual responsibility the first question rightly applies.

"Talk about" is perceived as lazy, and sometimes it is, and other times - and, again, I refused to do as a matter of principle - other times, it was just more efficient as a means to an end.

And, yes, beat writing can and is sometimes getting the coach to tell you what the readers gotta know as a means to an end. Beat writers don't have 3 weeks. They have, sometimes, 13 minutes.

One more thing: It's true that, sometimes, when an athlete or coach hears a question from the New York Times or some magazine reporter, boy, they light up and act like the clouds parted and man, what insight. And then everybody sits around and nods about how daring that all was, and What A Lesson To Learn for The Future.

But rare is the coach or player who treats the person who comes around every day the same as the national reporter in for a couple days or a week. The beat writer is in a kind of marriage - you can't "define the relationship" at every week's presser without burning out the coach/players and, inevitably, yourself."

You are absolutely right. Exhibit A: Hall of Fame football coach Bill Parcells (who I quite liked and got along with just fine). When coach of the Patriots, he'd ostentatiously give private interviews to the New York guys like Peter King and Gary Myers. When he became coach of the Jets for the first Pats game week he locked the New York guys out of an interview he gave to me and Mike Madden of the Globe, the two Boston guys.

 

[da man]

It's really simple, guys. No one outside the business gives the proverbial flying **** about the question. It's all about the answer.

 

[Kato]

Listen to an episode of Fresh Air. Terry Gross, who clearly does her homework and is a very good interviewer, uses "Talk about ..." all. the. time.

I'm not saying that's bad or that's good. But so often sportswriters kill each other over using "Talk about ..." Sometimes it just comes out. I almost cringe every time I say it. But ... most of those times are during a 5-minute post-game presser after which I'll have 20 minutes to finish the gamer. Get some quotes, get some perspective, try to do better next time.

 

[cisforkoke]

And be lazy this time.

 

[Moderator1]

I've said this before, likely on this thread, I'll say it again: You do you and don't worry yourself one ****ing second about how I do me. I've done OK in this business, been at it for a lot of years. Not the greatest ever but I've won a few awards and generally know what I'm doing. I've used "talk about" before and will likely use it again if I'm ever in a spot to do more writing. All the time? Of course not. But it works, for me, now and then and since I'm the one doing the work I'll do what works for me.

You don't like it? Tough ****. Again, you do you. Don't ****ing worry about how I do me.

I shake my head at the arrogance of people who look down at the way some others do their jobs, others who do it very well.

 

[cisforkoke]

At the televised newser after tonight's Warriors loss to the T'wolves, a reporter started his question "Talk about ...:" and went into a long description of a rotation situation.

When he finally finishes, Kerr looks up and says "What do you want me to say about it?" Of course I thought of this place.

 

[HanSenSE]

And your point in quoting something I wrote months ago and not replying? Unless your're starved for attention (and may Moddy have mercy on my soul ...).

 

[cisforkoke]

I thought it was a good example.

To elaborate: I think there are times when "Talk about ..." works and times when it doesn't.

Actual questions seem to be a better way to elicit quotes, although I could see where saying, "Talk about how this championship feels" might do the trick in the right situation.

 

[da man]

I thought it was a good example.

To elaborate: I think there are times when "Talk about ..." works and times when it doesn't.

Actual questions seem to be a better way to elicit quotes, although I could see where saying, "Talk about how this championship feels" might do the trick in the right situation.

Hey guess what? You can say the same thing about any question construction you want. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

 

[cisforkoke]

Why not go with the one that doesn't sometimes irritate the living **** out of the person being questioned? Just a thought.

 

[dixiehack]

All I can think of when I see this thread.

 

[da man]

Why not go with the one that doesn't sometimes irritate the living **** out of the person being questioned? Just a thought.

Does "talk about " do that more than any other question? Really?

I call BS.

I've seen just as many athletes/coaches/etc. get irritated by any number of questions phrased in other ways. If you're pissed, you're pissed. If you're an ass, you're an ass. If you just don't want to talk, you don't want to talk.

"Talk about" is not a magic word(s) that turns normally responsive people into uncooperative, inarticulate jerks.

I mean, was it a "talk about" question that got Rasheed Wallace repeating "both teams played hard"? I recently covered an NBA game after which the losing coach similarly repeated the same meaningless phrase as his answer to every question. Not one was a "talk about."

Again, it is not, has never been and never will be about the question. It's about the answer. Whatever gets you to a good one is the right way.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'm not defending anyone who uses the "talk about" phrase as their way of asking a question. Sure, it can work beautifully but it can also blow up in peoples' faces. It's lazy and far from insightful, perhaps sophomoric is the best way to describe it. However, it allows the interviewee's mind to go whatever direction they want and sometimes that can be more revealing than a direct question.

That said, it all depends on the person who is answering. Knowing your subject, how they respond and what buttons to push to get the information is really more important.

 

[Alma]

Again: Don't love talk about. Didn't use it.

In my experience, though, the heaviest critics of other using it were people who had better access, wrote features or longform, or are just general journalism scolds, of which there are too many on Twitter.

 

[cisforkoke]

Does "talk about " do that more than any other question?

That's not a question. [/verbatimsmartasscommentfromthebackoftheroom]

I can't speak for every source who has walked the earth, but I often gauge the potential for button-pushing by the responses of our local HOF, sometimes cool, sometimes asshole coach. I have to think that on a bad day, the statement to "talk about" something would not have gone over well.

Did actual questions set him off? You bet. But that is totally, completely irrelevant to whether "talk about" is a wise choice.

 

[da man]

That's not a question. [/verbatimsmartasscommentfromthebackoftheroom]

I can't speak for every source who has walked the earth, but I often gauge the potential for button-pushing by the responses of our local HOF, sometimes cool, sometimes asshole coach. I have to think that on a bad day, the statement to "talk about" something would not have gone over well.

Did actual questions set him off? You bet. But that is totally, completely irrelevant to whether "talk about" is a wise choice.

First, for the vast majority of people, on a bad day, nothing is going to go over well. That's what I'm talking about.

Second, if it works and you end up with a usable quote, it's a wise choice. And it works quite often for a whole lot of people out there (otherwise no one would use it and we wouldn't be having this discussion).

If you believe "talk about" is more likely to set people off, by all means, avoid it. No one is making you say it. In fact, I don't give the proverbial rat's ass how you ask your questions (as long as you're not asking something ridiculously irrelevant or doing schtick on deadline). But you don't know any better than I do that that is the case. And it isn't your job to tell anyone else how to do theirs.

 

[cisforkoke]

I know how Kerr and Popovich reacted, though.

 

[da man]

I know how Kerr and Popovich reacted, though.

OK. I know how Rasheed and the NBA coach (and many others) reacted to questions.

Would Kerr and Pop have been more responsive to a question asking the same thing? Or would they have found another way to be snarky?

 

[cisforkoke]

Again, those examples are irrelevant to whether "talk about" is specifically a button-pusher.

 

[da man]

Again, those examples are irrelevant to whether "talk about" is specifically a button-pusher.

Why? It shows there are all sorts of ways to push buttons.