Talking about "talk about"

Talk about what tree you'd be if you were a tree.

 

I guess "talk about" is preferable to "Coach - your quarterback sucks, why do you keep trotting him out there?"

 

writer from another paper uses "Talk about the game today" in just about every interview. Nice guy, but it makes me want to strangle him.

 

That's such crap. Insulting? Really? Whether you say "talk about" or something else, a good question is a good question and a bad question is a bad question.

Please explain the difference between these.

Your other examples illustrate where we agree -- a general question is OK, but a lazy general question isn't. Where you lose me is your insistence on a certain construction of the question. It's the content that counts, not the construction.

For example: "Is there a starting point to defending so many weapons?"
"Talk about where you start in trying to defend against so many weapons."

What's the difference between them? Is the person who uses the second really insulting the coach/player, while the one who says it your way is brilliant?

Talk about it what it is -- two words. Whether the question is bad/stupid/insulting has far more to do with the rest of the question than those two words.


As noted in a previous thread on this topic, the real issue is asking something that requires the subject to think and deliver more than a cursory response.

So the problem with, "Talk about your performance'' isn't the "talk about" construction, it's that it's way too vague. If you made it, say, "Talk about the reasons your short passing game was so effective,'' all is well.

There is nothing wrong with "talk about" as long as there's a specific point. "Talk about the offense'' is bad. But what's wrong with, "Talk about what you did to take advantage of the two-deep zone,'' or, "Talk about Joe Schmoe's emergence as a scoring threat this season.''

 

This. Had a coach who, even when it was just me interviewing him, insisted on an "opening statement." He also took every question with any degree of skepticism as if it was an attack on his coaching ability.

 

Talk about how long you've been a black quarterback ...

 

If you want to talk about pet peeves, I don't like these multiple-choice questions. It's as if the questioner is trying to assert with the question that he already knows the answer, but he's also planting the other side, just to cover himself.

 

I know some of us are going to disagree.

I like the either/or questions, because if the coach/player/subject agrees to your terms, he has narrowed his answer. And if he doesn't, he has also narrowed his answer. It works as insurance against blandness and as a guide toward precision.

As to what's the big deal about using "talk about" as a way to construct an otherwise focused and not lazy question, I guess I would just say — OK, no longer preaching, but simply stating a strong preference — asking a subject to "talk about" anything is to say to the subject, "just start talking, because I'm not looking for any kind of a precise answer, even if you limit it to what I said after asking you to 'talk about' what I asked you to talk about."

Also, this, and I tell my beat writers this:
You have to be your own expert witness. You have to be the paper's authority on the subject. Otherwise, why on earth do you have the beat? And given that, asking the subject to just "talk about" whatever it is, is to cede all of your own powers of observation and authority.

That's not being confrontational so much as looking out for your readers. If the subject really disagrees with your question or the terms with which you ask it, make him or her go outside those terms. Because, really, it's OUR story about the subject or the subject's game, or the subject's preparation, etc. It is not THEIR story that we just happen to be writing. To just ask the subject to "talk about," I think, is to give that standing away.

Not trying to be the (Seinfeld reference) "talk about" Nazi.
Just the way I feel.

 

I think you're focusing on the wrong end of the question, as several of us have told you.

There are good questions that start with "talk about" and bad questions that start with "talk about."

The idea is to solicit good information for the reader. How you do that is not as important.

 

If you get a good quote, it doesn't matter the grade your esteemed colleagues give your question. Guys routinely mocked on my previous beat often elicited great quotes with their crappy questions.

 

Several have summed it up well, especially BB Bobcat. A question can start with "talk about" and be great, terrible or anywhere in between.
To wit:
1. Talk about the play of QB Joe Blow today. He threw five TDs plus ran for two more, including one where he eluded five tacklers to put you up by two scores.
2. Talk about how your offense played today.

Thing is, some coaches will give you as much good stuff with the second as they would with the first. Some will give you jack with either question. It's more important to know what works for a particular coach or player.

 

Amen...I use talk about often when I'm getting a bunch of brief replies...the hope being it gets them talking about a certain part of the game from their perspective.