Reporters' Questions (sidetrack of the Kimmie M. LA blog thread)

First of all, if you haven't seen it yet, check this out- Meissner speaks out on some reporters' questions (in a rather snarky manner, I should forewarn her fans):

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/olympics_blog/2009/03/kimmie-meissn-1.html

__________________________

But I wanted to use this opportunity to think for a moment and say, what ELSE could reporters ask? What ARE some interesting, potential substitute questions that could be used? or are the standard questions "all that can be done"? Sound off in this thread.

I do agree with her on many points- especially the "are you happy" question. Of course they are! Duh! I think it's ok to break the ice with a congratulations (substitute that for "How are you feeling right now?") and then ask the questions.

Where I sort of began scratching my head is her remark that if a skater knew what went wrong, that the skater wouldn't have made the error in the first place. (is it just me or was that one indirectly aimed at Carruthers? ) Now, given she's had a lot of experience in this arena, but isn't part of the game- analyzing what might have happened after the process? If you know what went wrong, you're probably less likely to make the error again, I'd think. If a reporter asks that question, I can't see how it can't be answered bluntly with "I dunno, I just fell" or something like that. Some skaters can articulate it, others, not so much. I don't think that it is a horrible question. HOWEVER, I think reporters can easily go overboard here and almost intentionally make them feel bad. (see the Joyce/Alicia S. interview after the Beijing team final- painful) One or two negative questions is ok, but then move on.

So, a couple suggestions I thought of on the fly:

Instead of "Are You Happy?" - "Congrats on the win" - follow up with a question either on increased confidence, or something like that

Instead of "do you like to skate" - "what drives you to skate?"

It's actually not that easy to come up with anything much more in depth unless you have a longer time with the skater (i.e. it's a sit-down interview). I think NBC sports attempted to solve this problem by introducing the "Truth Booth" at US Nationals, to allow the skaters to say what they wish to tell the audience. It seems like it hasn't been such a big hit, though (or that effective, for that matter).

So what do you think?

_________________________

I think you make some great points, RD. I was turned off by Kimmie's blog not because I had any belief that she was a sweet angel, but because she seemed to complain about EVERY type of question. Not only aren't we supposed to ask her about the positives (according to this blog) -- the "Are you happy?" questions, we're also not supposed to irritate her with anything about the negatives, either -- the "What went wrong?" questions. She really seemed to want to have her cake and eat it, too.

And like I said in the other thread, for all her attempts to be witty here or whatever, I honestly don't think she'd like people baldly pointing out how truly dismal her results have been the last several seasons, or asking her pointed questions about her injury.

Kimmie's blog also dealt with the blatantly obvious IMO. We all know sports interviews are bland and cookie cutter. It was hardly brilliant or stunningly witty of her to point out something we all know. But the insipid interview is the expected protocol. Societal expectations are that a journalist is not going to ask an athlete anything "real" or hard hitting -- even when they're involved in a scandal such as Jordan and his sweatshop sportswear, it's seen as acceptable for athletes to shrug off any difficult question and re-direct back to the old "I just went out there and did my best" or "I just LUURRRVVE representing my country." And there's the thing: Aren't the athletes' replies usually equally as unoriginal and lacking in insight as the questions?

You're right, it is hard to come up with in-depth questions in a short interview. But actually, I think most interviewers ask, "HOW does it feel?" rather than "Are you happy?" which does leave the Kimmies of the world free to be more eloquent than just saying, "Great" -- but the truth of the matter is that the athletes are not especially eloquent, either. I understand they're overwhelmed with emotion, but looking at Kimmie in particular, she hasn't given great interviews. Actually not very good, she just kind of forces something out and does a fair bit of silly tittering.

So, good questions? I'm with you that there's nothing wrong with asking for post-performance analysis. Skaters other than Kimmie might actually have an idea what went wrong with a particular jump or move and be able to articulate it.

"What drives you to skate?" is good -- you'd probably still get, "I just love to skate" or "I just love it when the audience is with me and I feel like I'm doing something that makes people happy" -- but at least you've given the skater the opportunity to be more original if they want to be.

What about, if a skater has an issue, such as a consistent wrong edge takeoff, something like, "How are you and your coach planning to correct the problem with your lutz [or whatever]?"

And though you'd probably rarely get anything original in reply (again a big problem to me with Kimmie's blog, the skater's replies tend to be every bit as bad as the questions), when interviewing a winner, I don't think there's anything wrong with the standard question about the interviewee's immediate and longterm plans. Because fans really do want to know if someone's going to keep competing or retire or be at X, Y or Z competition. But again, you'd probably just get a PC answer rather than real information.

An interviewer could start an interview with a very open-ended question, but would have to be ready with something specific and easy-to-answer if the interviewee stumbled. Ex: start with, "What would you like to say about your win?" Of course, you'd probably just get, "Thanks to my fans, my coaches, my dog," etc., but again, you've given the winner a chance to answer as they wish.

And I'll end with a question, myself: Kimmie, if we ask you better questions, will you give us better answers?

Kimmie had a point with those questions. Some of them were out of bad taste, like the body questions and sexual orientation questions. Her sass-snark was civilized, as opposed to what it could be had someone else did the snarking.

I agree I wish she gave better answers but everyone since MK has been groomed to give answers like MK. I adore MK, but really, some of Sasha's answers in her early days ticked off a lot of people. I may not have agree with Sasha's answers but at least she was honest about them. I feel like no matter what skaters are in a tough bind. Be honest, while still respectful, and you're labeled as a sour puss or a pretentious brat *pokes* Be positive will get you labeled as generic and cliched.

Maybe people need to make up their minds on how they want skaters to answer their questions. It's also an issue of interpretation. Not for nothing, some people will take offense with anything.

I love hearing what skaters have to say about their programs. I wish reporters would ask more about what went into the construction of their programs, the struggles, improvements, how it works with the code , how it works towards their strength, etc.

I am just hoping Kimmie was trying to be sarcastic. Lets hope she didn't mean to sound as obnoxious as she did.