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

When I covered the NFL, if there was a question the coach didn't want to talk about, usually a player holding out or skipping minicamps or a demand to be traded, the beat writers would usually take turns, (it was unspoken, but it almost always happened like this.

Beat writer 1 - Has anyone on the coaching staff or in the front office been in contact with Player X or his agent?

Coach - I'd prefer to talk about the players who are here.

Beat writer 2 - Do you worry about how the dynamic changes when a star player refuses to report to camp?

Coach - Like I said, I'd prefer to talk about the players who are here, rather than comment on someone who is not here.

Beat writer 3 - Your leading receiver said the team's No. 1 priority should be getting Player X into camp. Does it concern you when a player who is holding out clearly has the support of his teammates?

Coach - Players can say whatever they want, but I'd prefer not to talk about someone who isn't here.

Beat writer 4 - After Player X, the other running backs on your roster have combined for no starts and 12 total carries last season. Is that a concern?

Coach - I like the players on this roster. I like the players who are here now.

Beat writer 5 - Is there a running who is here right now who can rush for 1,400 yards and 15 touchdowns?

Coach - I don't think anyone knows the answer to that.

TV guy - Coach, talk about the guys who were here today.

Coach - Thank you for finally asking a relevant question.

TV guy - Anytime coach.

 

The problem with "talk about" is that the interviewing is giving up control of the interview.
Presumably, you've watched the game - why not ask a question that reflects it?

 

"Tom, can you assess Dave Kingman's performance?" ;D

 

You just confirmed my point. Those are not questions; those are statements - or even worse - demands. Interviewing is about asking someone questions, not telling them what to do. Interview subjects are not at our beck and call.

 

Outside of New York, do any teams even have five beat writers any more?

 

I suppose they're not "at our beck and call" in many senses, but in some they are. They have to talk to us after games, even when they don't want to. We often call them at random times and usually expect a minute or two of their time.

More importantly, if we look at the two example questions, they are easily fixed.

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

"What ultimately led you to the decision to cut Joe Smack"

Now these are direct questions. Do they have more legitimacy now? Will they more directly lead to an insightful or useful answer? I'm not sure.

Listening to a past interview today, I immediately heard myself gently commanding a baseball coach to talk about his pitcher's excellent complete game. I suppose I could have asked what made him so effective, how impressive the coach thought the performance was or something more well-defined. That may have made a more well-defined answer as well. But as it happened, he dropped how the pitcher was a closer and spot starter who just dominated a strong team in the playoffs (nice little tidbit). Maybe a more specific question leaves that out, or maybe that more specific question assumes something, and I come off looking like I don't know what I'm talking about.

Not saying it was good that I used it, but at some prep baseball game it seemed to get the job done in some sense. Overuse is a problem to be sure, but I still will take "talk about it over" statements said in a questioning tone and questions with obnoxiously long lead-ins (not that I'm never guilty of the latter ones).

 

I don't see the big deal with it...as long as it's used to get the coach/player speaking in their own words. I may rather ask "How did you break the game open in the third quarter?" or "What happened on that last inbounds play?" But using the "talk about" technique will get you something real to use.

The ones that bug me most are when a reporter goes on a long explanation/breakdown before finally getting to his question.
Get to the point and let the coach/player give you the breakdown from their perspective.

 

Meh. Much ado. More often than not, I've seen "talk about" lead the coach to say something that's worth following up on with more specific questions. Worry more about the writing, not this stuff.

 

Doesn't bug me all that much depending on what follows the "Talk about..." Sometimes you're looking for a descriptive quote about a play or a trend or want the person's point of view on a specific topic. "Talk about" lends itself to broader answers.

It can also come off as less accusatory, which is useful when it's a question that's going to make a coach defensive. I have a lot more success with "Talk about the decision to not foul in the final minute" than "Why did you tell your players not to foul in the final minute?" The second can come off like you're second guessing the coach while the first comes off as more probing the thought process, and if you're dealing with an already-defensive interviewee, it can be really useful at not shutting them down. Even if you are second-guessing them, you're going to get a better answer if your first question on the subject doesn't paint them as stupid.

Frankly, it's all in the quality of the question/statement. "Talk about how your team is adjusting to the 3-4 defense" is a much more effective 'question' than "So, coach, how's spring practice going?" One of those is lazy, and it ain't the statement.

ETA: I guess the best "talk about" statements could easily be rephrased as questions, but I'm not worried about word count in my interviews, just in my stories.