I've asked one of the Brojos (I forget which one) before why they seem to think "not being friends with the athletes" and being good interviewers are mutually exclusive.
Wejo's comment about journalists not asking about when "athletes fail" struck me as interesting. I always thought it was short-sighted and disingenuous to look at a race as one person "succeeding" and everyone else as "failing."
I find it surprising the Brojos take such a simplistic view of running, given their own careers. Wejo didn't PR every time he raced. He had some excellent races, some ok races, and some real stinkers- like most every runner. Likewise, Rojo is a college coach, and I don't know a college athlete that doesn't at least occasionally have a bad race, even if you do see athletes go on a hot streak.
This is why I don't get it when they do something like point out multiple times to Manzano that he was last in a race. Yes, he knows that. Obviously the plan was not to go out and get last. No one expects you guys to go and tell him "oh, its ok, Leo." On the other hand, repeatedly pointing out he was last serves what purpose? Asking how an athlete feels about his/her effort/place/fitness is relevant. Asking something like "were you surprised to run so fast, given that you were in last place?" is a loaded question disguised as relevancy.
Likewise, with Rupp, why wouldn't you just say "Hey, Galen, when you're done with this guy, can you come talk to us for 5min?" Then you're not shoving a camera in his face and awkwardly asking questions.
I don't expect you guys to be friends with everybody- but at the same, shoving a camera in someone's face and not having any questions prepared strikes me as unprofessional, not "hard hitting."
I like the forum here, but frankly, I don't think you're very good at the journalism side of things. The childish strikeout font "jokes," the petty snipes on college kids, the editorial captions. . . none of these things are the hallmarks of professionals.