"Hey coach, talk about (fill in the blank)." Is this cardinal sin of interviews?

Well said.
I am not big on "talk about," except as a tool for loosening up a subject. I tend to phrase it more like "tell me about," as in, "you're raising money for pancreatic cancer research because your dad died of it. Tell me something about him."

Also, as anybody who covers a popular beat knows, lotsa times in press conference situations, you don't get a chance to ask a series of finely honed, specific questions. It's all over the map. What you really want to avoid is a one-word or generic response, which 'talk about" can help avoid.

There's a radio guy in my market who used to just hold out his mike and intone, "your thoughts?" One day a guy said, "my thoughts on what, exactly?"
So that probably wasn't a good approach ...

 

"Talk about" is a very useful tool if you can't for the life of you think of a decent question.

Or perhaps were napping during the game.

 

absolutely true that i've heard some great answers come as the result of awful questions and great questions drawing nothing. but that's just the result of some joker stumbling onto something good, while sometimes the more insightful, sharpest questions draw awful responses 'cause you've hit the mark and the coach wants to deflect it, for whatever reason.

if you're on a beat, keep asking the smart questions. show the coach you know what you're doing and not just following the crowd. it's what always pays off in the long run.

conversely, the awful, stupid question draws a great, funny, quotable response, often because the manager/coach is mocking it in some way. and if the coach thinks you're a know-nothing clown with a mike, he'll take note of that as well.

 

The question is are you trying to get the subject to say something significant or are you trying to avoid looking lazy in front of your peers?

If "Talk about" works, go for it. Do better work than your peers and you don't have to care what they think about the questions you ask, or how you ask them.
Generally though, better reporters have better questions.

 

If there's a big play in the game, I like to ask the player (s) to take me through it. "Take me through that goal.." sometimes I throw "talk about what you were seeing out there," but since I mostly do preps, I keep things simple.

 

I think this would be the cardinal sin of interviews:

Reporter: "Coach, talk about that big win today."
Coach: "What the hell? We LOST the game, you moron."

 

It's a radio or TV move that reporters use when they get lazy.

 

This is one of those things that journos worry about way more than their audience. If I ask them a question in Elizabethian prose, Morse code or through a series of talk abouts, nobody's going to care except fellow journos and maybe the subject if (s)he doesn't understand/like the question. But any road to Rome; if it elicits the response you want, then it was a good question. Your readers don't give two mouse shits about how you got the information, they just want to see it.

 

"Talk about the thought process which led you to go for it on fourth-and-3"

"Talk about what ultimately led you to the decision to cut Joe Smack"

I'd say these are legitimate questions that began with "talk about", which is the problem with everyone of these threads.

 

The cardinal sin in journalism, interviewing-wise, is when you see another writer with a subject having a one-on-one conversation, and you jump in without even so much as a nod or a look to the other journalist to make sure that you're not stomping all over their interview.

Calling someone "coach" or saying "Talk about . . . ", Meh. I've seen many journalists attempt to phrase their questions in ways that are clear attempts to sound smart, and coaches slap them down pretty quickly. Best to just acknowledge the ego of the person on the dais, and allow them to think they're in control by steering the early part of the press conference.

 

It's not a lazy question if it gets a quality response.

Some coaches or players need specific questions. Some coaches or players work better with general questions, and consider specifics too loaded or paints them in a corner when the situation doesn't dictate such. One coach I dealt with usually answered anywhere from four to eight questions the moment I turned on my cassette recorder.

In summary: Results vary. It's not lazy if it works in that instance. Perhaps it could be perceived as lazy if a reporter never has any other insightful questions.

 

Piotr - I agree with you to a point but in these days of shrinking media availability, restricted access and athletes who are far less generous with their time for reporters, the idea that one reporter gets to monopolize an interview with an athlete or coach for more than five minutes is no longer realistic.

If you want a one-on-one, you need to set it up in advance and that is a different animal all together.

But when you are in one of these cattle call 30-minute open locker room situations - especially at a major event or when there is a lot of media present - it is unrealistic to expect you will get one on one time for very long.