Let's talk about "talk about"

If that's the case, then I'd say it's a pretty damn important subject.

 

Yup. Using "talk about" in a postgame interview is going to bring down the industry.

 

You keep doing you, da man. It's all fine.

There is definitely a better way, but it's not for everybody.

 

I cover a rather well known coach who was once asked one of these "talk about" questions by a radio guy. He proceeded to talk about the weather, his mother and what he was planning on eating later that evening. Best answer I've ever heard to the mindless idiots that use this approach.

 

"Talk about playing at home."

What kind of dumb shit is that? Had to be a TV guy, right? Struck me as a "hey, uh, can you look at me and say something about something please?"

 

And you've hit the point exactly (again). The problem isn't the "talk about" construction, it's not having a point to what you're asking. If that was phrased in the form of a question -- "What about playing at home?" for example -- it wouldn't be any better.

 

I hate it, but I do it sometimes when I'm dealing with a subject who gives yes-or-no answers.

There used to be, and there still are, reporters who will pose "questions" in the form of a presumptive quote, and if the subject says "yeah," use the question as a quote.

Reporter: "Do you think the blocking ability of your offensive line was the deciding factor in the fourth-quarter drive?"
Jones: "Uh, yeah."
Story: "Our offensive line made the difference in the fourth quarter," Jones said.


You can still spot these types when you read quotes which are immaculately white-middle-class grammatically perfect from subjects you've seen and heard on tape to be either farm-country hillbilly or hardcore urban street talkers.

I've seen written quotes that looked like press releases from Sir Laurence Olivier from coaches who sounded like Junior Samples in person.

With the growing prevalence the last 20-30 years or so of everybody using mini-recorders for interviews, that stuff won't fly any more, and I think the "talk about" pantomime has developed to compensate.

You figure by high school most kids have seen enough locker room interviews to do the Bull Durham Drill and be able to regurgitate nothingburger quotes when needed.

(It probably also ought to be noted the nothingburger cliche quotes are often entirely true: tough defense in the fourth quarter, pitchers throwing strikes or good blocking by the OL really does make a difference in a lot of games.)

Although occasionally you do hit pay dirt and the subject really does "talk about" the question in a manner neither pre-processed pablum or incoherent grunting.

 

Say what now? A writer uses the question to set up a "yeah" answer then uses the question as the quote? WTF?

 

That's the new journalism. Even the quotes are lies. All these morons with no ethics, no training, and no education just make shit up and say it's their own and it's true. I fucking love new media and I sure as fuck love bloggers the best.

 

Well clearly that question isn't any better, but there are better questions that might get to the point of what the guy was trying to ask. Maybe something like "How much of an advantage is it to play at home?" or "Why does this team perform so much better at home?" These aren't groundbreaking questions obviously, but they are at least a start in the right direction away from "Talk about playing at home" or "What about playing at home?" And they took all of five seconds to come up with.

 

There are certain times when "talk about" works -- such as with golfers who just need a prod to regurgitate their entire round.

Generally, it's a way for reporters to sound authoritative when they can't come up with a question they are willing to ask.