Opinion: Conducting effective interviews with experts for news stories is harder than it looks, and most journalists, even seasoned ones, make fundamental errors that undermine their reporting. The truth is, many reporters fail to adequately prepare, mismanage the interview itself, or botch the follow-up, leaving critical information on the table and ultimately delivering weaker news content to their audience. This isn’t just about getting quotes; it’s about extracting genuine insight. Are you truly maximizing every expert interaction?
Key Takeaways
- Thoroughly research your expert’s specific publications and recent statements to formulate precise, challenging questions that go beyond surface-level information.
- Structure your interview with an assertive, conversational tone, using open-ended questions to encourage detailed responses while firmly redirecting tangential answers back to the core topic.
- Always plan for a strategic follow-up, including specific data requests or clarification questions, within 24 hours of the initial interview to ensure accuracy and completeness.
- Prioritize listening over rapid-fire questioning, allowing for pauses and encouraging the expert to elaborate on complex points without interruption.
- Verify every significant claim made by an expert against at least one independent, authoritative source to prevent the propagation of misinformation, even if it feels redundant.
The Peril of Under-Preparation: Why “Wing It” Journalism Fails
I’ve seen it countless times in my two decades covering everything from local politics to international finance. A reporter gets a coveted slot with a leading authority – let’s say, a top epidemiologist from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta regarding a new public health initiative – and they go in armed with little more than a general topic and a few generic questions. This is malpractice. You wouldn’t expect a surgeon to operate without reviewing a patient’s full medical history, so why would a journalist interview an expert without a deep dive into their specific body of work?
The biggest mistake here is failing to conduct proper due diligence. Before I ever pick up the phone or step into an interview room, I’m poring over the expert’s recent publications, their public statements, even their social media (professional, of course). If I’m interviewing Dr. Anya Sharma, a renowned urban planning expert at Georgia Tech, about the impact of the new I-285 express lanes on Atlanta’s traffic flow, I’m not just asking, “How will this affect traffic?” I’m referencing her 2024 paper, “Micro-Mobility and Congestion Dynamics in Southern Urban Cores,” published in the Journal of Urban Planning and Development. I’d ask, “Dr. Sharma, your paper suggests a potential rebound effect where improved flow on express lanes might induce more peripheral traffic. How does the current design specifically mitigate that risk, given the proposed access points at Roswell Road and Peachtree Industrial Boulevard?” That kind of question shows respect, demonstrates understanding, and compels the expert to offer a far more nuanced and valuable response.
Some might argue that journalists are generalists, and it’s impractical to become an expert on every topic. I reject that premise entirely. You don’t need a PhD in epidemiology to understand the core arguments of a CDC white paper. You need to invest the time. According to a Pew Research Center study from 2022, only 30% of journalists felt they had “a great deal” of time to research stories thoroughly. While time constraints are real, they are not an excuse for superficiality. It’s about prioritizing. A quick Google search isn’t research; it’s a starting point. Real research involves reading academic papers, reviewing government reports – like those from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division for environmental topics – and understanding the expert’s specific contribution to their field. Without this groundwork, you’re merely a conduit for soundbites, not a facilitator of genuine understanding. You’re wasting your expert’s time and, more importantly, your audience’s.
Mishandling the Interview: From Passive Listening to Probing for Gold
Once you’re in the room, or on the call, the next set of common errors emerges. Many reporters treat interviews like a checklist, firing off pre-written questions and then moving on, regardless of the quality of the answer. This isn’t an interrogation; it’s a conversation with purpose. The goal isn’t just to get a quote; it’s to uncover insights, challenge assumptions, and understand the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’.
A major misstep is the failure to actively listen and adapt. I remember interviewing a prominent economist at Emory University last year about the shifting employment landscape in Georgia. I had a set of questions about AI’s impact on manufacturing jobs. He started talking about the unexpected surge in skilled trades apprenticeships in areas like Dalton and Gainesville, driven by federal infrastructure spending. My initial instinct was to steer him back to AI. Instead, I pivoted. “That’s fascinating,” I said, “Could you elaborate on the specific sectors seeing this growth and what policy levers, if any, the state is pulling through the Technical College System of Georgia to support it?” That deviation yielded a far richer, more localized angle than my original line of questioning would have. You must be prepared to abandon your script if the expert offers a more compelling narrative.
Another critical mistake is accepting vague or overly academic answers without demanding clarity. Experts often speak in jargon or broad generalizations. Your job is to translate that for your audience. If an expert says, “The fiscal externalities of this policy are significant,” you don’t just write that down. You immediately follow up: “Could you break down ‘fiscal externalities’ for me? What does that mean for the average Georgian? Are we talking about increased taxes, reduced services, or something else entirely?” Push for concrete examples, specific numbers, and tangible impacts. Don’t be afraid to ask “Why?” five times, like a persistent child. That’s how you get to the core of their expertise.
Finally, reporters often fail to manage the expert’s time effectively, allowing them to ramble or stray off-topic. While flexibility is crucial, so is maintaining control. If an expert starts discussing their weekend golf game, a polite but firm redirection is necessary. “That’s interesting, but I want to make sure we get back to the implications of the new legislation on small businesses in the Smyrna area. Specifically, what are the immediate compliance challenges they face?” This demonstrates you value their expertise but also your audience’s need for focused information.
The Post-Interview Pitfall: Neglecting Follow-Up and Verification
The interview doesn’t end when you hang up the phone or leave the office. Many journalists consider the hard part over, but the post-interview phase is where accuracy is solidified and missed opportunities are often salvaged. A common error here is the absence of a structured follow-up. I always send a concise email within 24 hours, thanking the expert and, crucially, including specific requests for clarification or additional data points that emerged during our conversation. This isn’t just polite; it’s strategic.
For example, after an interview with a representative from the Georgia Department of Public Health about the latest flu season statistics, I might email: “Thank you again for your time today. Just to confirm, you mentioned a 15% increase in hospitalizations for individuals aged 65 and over in Fulton County compared to the previous year – could you send me the specific data set or report where that figure is cited? Also, could you clarify the exact start date for the free vaccine clinics in the Old Fourth Ward neighborhood?” This approach not only ensures accuracy but also often prompts the expert to provide even more valuable information they might have forgotten during the initial conversation.
Another major oversight is the failure to independently verify claims. Experts, like all humans, can make mistakes, misremember details, or even present information with a particular bias. Relying solely on one expert’s word, no matter how credentialed, is journalistic negligence. Every significant claim, every statistic, every pivotal piece of information must be cross-referenced. If Dr. Smith tells me that the new state budget allocates $50 million specifically to broadband expansion in rural Georgia, I’m not just taking his word for it. I’m checking the Office of Planning and Budget’s official state budget documents, looking for that line item. This isn’t about distrust; it’s about journalistic rigor. A Reuters Fact Check report on misinformation in 2023 highlighted the increasing need for journalists to be vigilant gatekeepers of information, especially when dealing with complex or controversial topics. We have a moral obligation to our audience to present verified facts, not just expert opinions.
Some might argue that constant verification slows down the news cycle. My response? Speed without accuracy is merely noise. In an era rife with disinformation, our credibility as news organizations hinges on our unwavering commitment to truth. A slightly delayed, accurate report is infinitely more valuable than a rapid, flawed one. We are the last line of defense against the proliferation of unverified claims, and that responsibility starts with how we handle our expert sources.
The bottom line is this: treat every interview with an expert as a critical opportunity to elevate your reporting. Stop making these common mistakes, invest in thorough preparation, master the art of the probing conversation, and commit to rigorous verification. Your audience deserves nothing less than news built on solid, expertly-vetted foundations.
How can I prepare for an interview with an expert when I have limited background on their field?
Begin by identifying the expert’s specific area of specialization through their university profile, published papers, or organizational roles. Focus your initial research on understanding the core concepts and recent developments within that narrow scope. Look for introductory articles or summaries from reputable academic institutions or wire services like AP News to quickly grasp foundational knowledge. Formulate questions that bridge your current understanding with their advanced knowledge, allowing them to explain complex ideas in accessible terms.
What’s the best way to handle an expert who is overly technical or uses too much jargon?
Politely interrupt and ask for clarification. Frame it as ensuring accuracy for your audience. Say something like, “That’s a really important point, but for our readers, could you explain what ‘quantum entanglement’ means in simpler terms, perhaps with an analogy?” or “Could you give me a concrete example of how that ‘econometric model’ impacts the average family in Cobb County?” Your role is to translate, so don’t be afraid to push for simplicity and real-world applicability.
Should I send my questions to the expert in advance?
Generally, no. Providing a broad outline of topics can be helpful to ensure they come prepared, but sending a full list of questions can lead to canned answers and stifle spontaneous, insightful conversation. The element of surprise allows for more genuine, unrehearsed responses. However, if the expert insists, or if the topic is highly sensitive and requires precise framing, a limited set of key questions might be shared, always with the understanding that you may ask follow-up or additional questions.
How do I verify information from an expert if there are no public reports or studies directly confirming their claim?
This is where journalistic tenacity comes in. First, ask the expert for their source or the methodology behind their claim. If they cite proprietary data or internal analyses, ask if they can provide a summary, a redacted version, or a contact for someone who can corroborate. If that’s not possible, seek out other experts in the same field and ask them to comment on the plausibility or general acceptance of the claim. Look for analogous situations or similar data from different regions or industries that might offer indirect verification. Sometimes, the inability to verify a claim means you must attribute it solely to the expert, noting any limitations of its substantiation.
What if an expert tries to push a specific agenda or political viewpoint during the interview?
Acknowledge their perspective and then gently pivot back to the objective facts or the specific topic of your story. For instance, “I understand your concerns about the policy’s broader implications, but specifically regarding its impact on water quality in the Chattahoochee River, what scientific evidence supports your projections?” Your role is to report on their expertise relevant to your story, not to provide a platform for their personal advocacy unless that advocacy is the specific subject of your report. Maintain a neutral stance and focus on verifiable information.
