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.

 

One of my biggest pet peeves.

Ask a fucking 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.

 

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.

 

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?"

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.