As a veteran news producer, I’ve seen countless hours of interviews with experts, and while many shine, a surprising number falter, even among seasoned journalists. The difference between a compelling segment and a forgettable one often boils down to avoiding common, yet easily rectifiable, missteps. We’re talking about the subtle shifts in approach that can make or break a news story’s impact and credibility. So, what are these critical errors that undermine the very purpose of bringing in an expert?
Key Takeaways
- Always conduct thorough pre-interview research on the expert’s specific publications and recent statements to avoid asking redundant questions.
- Prioritize listening over adhering strictly to a question list; a dynamic interview flows from genuine engagement, not rigid adherence to a script.
- Challenge expert opinions respectfully but firmly when data or opposing views warrant it, ensuring journalistic integrity.
- Prepare for technical glitches by having a backup communication method and a pre-briefed plan for regaining connection.
- Conclude interviews by asking the expert for their single most important takeaway, providing a strong, memorable soundbite.
The Peril of Superficial Preparation
I cannot stress this enough: lack of deep preparation is the cardinal sin in expert interviews. It’s not enough to know their name and their title; you need to understand their specific contributions to their field, their recent publications, and their nuanced positions on the topic at hand. When I was running the morning show desk at Atlanta’s WXIA-TV, we once had a renowned economist scheduled to discuss the Federal Reserve’s latest interest rate hike. My junior reporter, bless his heart, asked a question that the economist had addressed extensively in a Reuters op-ed just two days prior. The expert’s polite but visibly annoyed response, “As I articulated in my recent piece…”, deflated the entire segment. It signaled to our audience that we hadn’t done our homework, eroding trust.
This goes beyond basic fact-checking. It requires reading their books, skimming their academic papers, and understanding their historical stances. My own professional assessment is that a solid 30-40% of interview misfires stem directly from this oversight. According to a Pew Research Center study from 2022 (the latest comprehensive data available), public trust in news media continues to decline, with a significant factor being perceived lack of depth and accuracy. When we bring in an expert, we’re implicitly vouching for their authority and our ability to extract valuable insights. Failing to prepare adequately for that exchange is a betrayal of that trust.
Historically, the “golden age” of broadcast journalism, say the 1970s and 80s, saw reporters often spending days, sometimes weeks, preparing for a single high-profile interview. While the 24/7 news cycle makes that level of immersion impractical today, the principle remains. You might be interviewing a scientist from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in DeKalb County about a new viral strain – do you know their specific research focus, or are you just asking generic questions about public health? The difference is palpable to the viewer.
The Trap of the Rigid Question List
We all go into interviews with a list of questions. It’s good practice. But treating that list as an unbreakable sacred text is a recipe for disaster. The best interviews are conversations, not interrogations. I once worked with a reporter who, during a live interview with a cybersecurity expert about a major data breach impacting Georgia Power customers, missed a golden opportunity. The expert mentioned a novel phishing technique being used in the attack, a detail that was genuinely new and alarming. Instead of following up on that critical point, the reporter, eyes glued to her notes, plowed ahead with her next pre-written question about password strength. It was maddening to watch.
My position is firm: listen more than you speak, and be agile enough to pivot. An interview is a dynamic interaction. The expert might drop a fascinating nugget of information, an unexpected statistic, or a controversial opinion that warrants immediate exploration. Data from internal post-interview analyses at my former network (confidential, of course, but I can attest to its consistency) showed that segments where reporters demonstrated adaptability and genuine curiosity consistently scored higher in audience engagement metrics. Contrast this with interviews where the reporter seemed more interested in “getting through” their questions, which often felt stilted and uninformative.
Think of it like a chess match. You have a strategy, but you must react to your opponent’s moves. If an expert says, “Well, the recent legislative changes in the Georgia General Assembly, specifically House Bill 789, have truly complicated this,” your follow-up shouldn’t be, “And what are your general thoughts on regulatory oversight?” It should be, “Can you elaborate on how HB 789 specifically impacts this situation?” This isn’t just about sounding smart; it’s about extracting maximum value for your audience.
Failing to Challenge or Follow Up Effectively
This mistake is particularly egregious in the news niche. Our role isn’t just to parrot expert opinions; it’s to contextualize, scrutinize, and, when necessary, challenge them. This doesn’t mean being confrontational or disrespectful, but it does mean being willing to ask the tough questions. I recall a time when we had a political analyst discussing the implications of a contentious Fulton County Superior Court ruling. He offered a very one-sided interpretation. My producer, a brilliant woman named Sarah, interjected from the control room, “Ask him about the dissenting opinions! Ask him how this aligns with previous rulings in the Eleventh Circuit!” The reporter, initially hesitant, asked a pointed follow-up, and the expert, momentarily flustered, had to acknowledge the complexities. That moment transformed a bland segment into a genuinely informative debate.
Journalists must possess the courage to question authority, even expert authority. This requires a solid understanding of potential counter-arguments, alternative perspectives, or even data that might contradict the expert’s assertions. For instance, if a public health expert states that a particular intervention has a 90% success rate, a good interviewer might ask, “And what about the 10% for whom it doesn’t work? What are the underlying factors there?” Or, “Are there any studies that present a different success rate, and how do you reconcile those findings?”
According to the Associated Press (AP) Stylebook guidelines, which many newsrooms (including mine) adhere to, impartiality and thoroughness are paramount. This extends to how we handle expert commentary. We aren’t just amplifying a voice; we’re providing a balanced, critical lens. My personal anecdote: I had a client last year, a brilliant but sometimes overly confident academic, who was being interviewed about climate policy. He made a sweeping claim about renewable energy implementation timelines. I prepped the interviewer, suggesting they ask about the infrastructure challenges in states like Georgia, particularly regarding grid modernization and the sheer scale of investment required. This wasn’t to undermine the expert, but to provide a more complete, grounded picture for our viewers in the Southeast.
Ignoring Technical Pitfalls and Poor Environment Control
In the era of remote interviews, technical glitches are a constant threat. Yet, many still treat them as an afterthought. I’ve witnessed live segments derailed by pixelated video, echoing audio, and dropped connections. This isn’t just annoying; it undermines the credibility of both the expert and the news outlet. Imagine interviewing a trauma surgeon from Grady Memorial Hospital about emergency room capacity, and their audio keeps cutting out. The message, no matter how vital, gets lost in the static.
My professional assessment: a pre-interview tech check is non-negotiable. This means testing their internet connection, advising on lighting (no backlighting!), ensuring a quiet environment, and checking microphone quality. We even provide clear instructions on how to use tools like Zoom or Microsoft Teams, including specific settings for audio input and output. I’ve personally walked countless experts through these steps over the phone, sometimes just minutes before air. It’s tedious, but it saves segments.
One specific case study involved an interview with a financial analyst from a Midtown Atlanta firm about the stock market’s volatility. We scheduled a 15-minute tech check an hour before his 7:30 AM live slot. During the check, we discovered his office internet was unstable. We immediately pivoted, advising him to use his phone’s hotspot as a backup and ensuring his phone was fully charged. We also noticed a distracting glare from a window behind him and suggested he move his setup. The interview went off without a hitch, demonstrating the value of proactive technical preparation. Had we not intervened, it would have been a disaster of frozen screens and garbled audio, wasting everyone’s time and our valuable airtime.
Beyond technology, consider the expert’s physical environment. A cluttered background, poor lighting, or distracting noises (kids, pets, construction) can significantly detract from the message. We often advise experts to find a neutral background, perhaps a plain wall, and ensure adequate front lighting. It seems minor, but these details contribute to the overall professional presentation that audiences expect from a credible news source.
The Failure to Craft a Memorable Close
Many interviews simply fizzle out. The reporter runs out of questions, says “Thank you,” and moves on. This is a missed opportunity to leave the audience with a powerful, concise takeaway. Experts often have a unique ability to distill complex information into a single, impactful statement. It’s our job to help them do that.
My firm belief is that every expert interview should conclude with a deliberate attempt to elicit a “mic drop” moment. This could be asking, “If there’s one thing our viewers should understand about [topic], what is it?” or “What’s the single most critical piece of advice you’d offer right now?” This forces the expert to synthesize their thoughts and provides a strong soundbite for editing or a memorable final thought for live audiences. We ran into this exact issue at my previous firm. Our reporters were so focused on getting through the core questions that the end of segments often felt abrupt and unsatisfying. By implementing a mandatory “final thought” question, we saw a noticeable improvement in the perceived value of our expert contributions.
Consider the historical context: iconic interviews often have those memorable closing remarks that define the entire conversation. Think of a news anchor asking a world leader, “What is your message to the American people tonight?” The answer often becomes the headline. We should aim for a similar impact, tailored to the specific expertise. It’s about giving the expert the final word in a way that reinforces their authority and the story’s main point. Don’t underestimate the power of a well-crafted conclusion; it’s what often sticks with the audience long after the broadcast ends.
Ultimately, avoiding these common pitfalls transforms interviews with experts from mere information exchanges into compelling, authoritative news segments that truly inform and engage the public. It requires diligence, adaptability, and a relentless focus on the audience’s need for clarity and insight.
To truly excel in conducting interviews with experts, journalists must internalize that every interaction is an opportunity to build or erode trust. By meticulously preparing, remaining flexible, challenging judiciously, mastering technical aspects, and crafting impactful conclusions, you elevate not just the individual segment, but the credibility of the news organization as a whole.
How much research is truly necessary before an expert interview?
You should allocate at least 1-2 hours of dedicated research for a 10-15 minute interview, focusing on the expert’s specific publications, recent media appearances, and any controversies or nuanced positions they hold. For longer or more complex topics, this time investment should increase significantly.
What’s the best way to handle an expert who is overly technical or uses too much jargon?
Politely interject and ask them to explain the technical term in simpler language for the audience. You can say something like, “Could you break down what ‘quantum entanglement’ means for our viewers who might not be physicists?” or “Can you give us a real-world example of that concept?” This ensures accessibility without insulting the expert.
Should I send my questions to the expert beforehand?
Generally, providing a broad outline of topics is advisable, but sending a detailed question list can sometimes lead to rehearsed answers and stifle spontaneous conversation. Offer themes or general areas of discussion to allow the expert to prepare without losing the element of natural dialogue.
What if an expert gives a non-answer or dodges a question?
Rephrase the question and ask it again, perhaps more directly. If they continue to evade, you can acknowledge it by saying, “You seem to be sidestepping the direct question about X. Can you clarify why you’re hesitant to address it?” This puts the onus back on them and highlights their evasion to the audience.
How do I manage time effectively during a live expert interview?
Have a clear internal clock and know your hard out time. Prioritize your most critical questions first. If time is running short, politely inform the expert, “We only have time for one more brief question,” to manage expectations and ensure you get your final, crucial points across.
