• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Obviously...blah blah....blah blah."

I always seem to say, "It seems like," when leading into a question. Can't say I've ever said, "Obviously."
 
there's a huge difference between print and tv reporters. it's almost a good thing for print reporters to seem uncertain, or as if they are grasping for a concept they can't quite comprehend. cirlce around the question a bit, paint a broad picture, but let interview subject be the voice of authority or clarify what you're trying to get at. it's the best way to get solid, must-use quotes.

but the tv guys... they aren't just reporting, they are part of a performance and should execute their reporting and interviews as such.
 
e4 said:
I'm not old enough to say this with any authority, but I'll throw out my best guess... or at least my thoughts, because these sort of things irritate the heck out of me to the point where I often mute games... I'll keep my premise simple and see what people think... (obviously this is not an earth shattering epiphany, either)

It seems that over time the average sports fan's knowledge has increased exponentially. He or she is able to understand and break down the intricacies and nuances of the game with a very discerning eye, typically without the help of the play-by-play or color guy.

At the same time, the guys in the booth haven't stayed out in front of the fans' knowledge, they are more obsolete than cutting edge. Most of these booth guys may have been a catalyst for the fan's education or interest some years ago, experts who could break down games and offer "ah-ha" types of insight, even during live broadcasts, but no more.

I do not know if it was caused by a lack of effort or a lack of access, but they now struggle to offer information that the average fan isn't already clued in on. So, when they spout "obviously this..." or "obviously that..." I feel like he's really saying, "You at home probably already know this, I know it -- I'm not the idiot... plus I've said it during every telecast the past 12 years -- but I don't know what else to say..."

The other way of looking at it, I guess, is that the broadcaster no longer knows who he/she is speaking to... maybe?.... but I do think they are speaking to a LCD they aren't giving enough credit to.

EDIT: the last tv analyst i found entirely engaging was al leiter when he first took up a microphone in the booth. he was able to explain the game, its execution -- and a pitcher's strategy -- in a way that was entirely refreshing and not just an athlete speaking for the sake of being an athlete in the booth.


Good post but I see it a little simpler. Couldn't it just be an acknowledgement of the listener's understanding, wanting to make a point to casual fans but at the same time not wanting to insult the "heavy user" type who has studied the effects of the team's draft and is beginning to scout the following season's recruiting class?
 
maybe...and perhaps... but casual fans don't typically tune in by themselves. if they're watching a game or event, it's probably because they are watching it with more serious viewers and fans of the sport. so if i am a more serious fan, i don't want the analysts appealing to say, my grandmother who doesn't know the infield fly rule. i'd much rather explain that to her myself and learn something new from the "experts."

part of the problem, too, is that some guys in the booth just don't know when to shut up (a la theisman). it's just talking for the sake of talking, so the good stuff sometimes gets missed.
 
imjustagirl said:
My problem is I ALWAYS say obviously in the questions I ask now. It drives me crazy, and I try to train myself not to do it. But in my lead-in sentence, I say 'obviously.'

Kills me.


You're not the only one. I'm considering shock therapy to strip the word from my vocabulary.
 
I'm with leather Flash. ;)

I treat obviously like "ahem," "you know", "like" and all the other extraneous words and phrases that should be edited out of copy.

Unless there is a good reason for obviously to stay in there.

But there rarely is.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top