Securing interviews with experts is a cornerstone of credible news reporting, but it’s fraught with potential pitfalls. Are you inadvertently undermining your own credibility by making easily avoidable mistakes during these high-stakes conversations?
Key Takeaways
- Always verify an expert’s credentials through multiple sources before the interview to avoid reputational damage, as happened with the Dr. Anya Sharma incident at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in March 2025.
- Prepare open-ended, specific questions tailored to the expert’s recent work, like asking about the implications of Dr. Chen’s recent paper on urban heat islands published in “Environmental Science & Technology.”
- Actively listen during the interview, allowing the expert to fully articulate their points without interruption, and follow up with clarifying questions based on their responses, not just your pre-prepared list.
Failing to Verify Credentials: The Anya Sharma Debacle
One of the most damaging mistakes a journalist can make is failing to properly vet their expert. The rapid news cycle often pressures reporters to secure sources quickly, but this haste can lead to serious errors in judgment. I remember the fallout vividly from the Anya Sharma incident at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in March of 2025. Sharma was presented as a leading expert on urban planning, commenting on the proposed BeltLine expansion through historic Grant Park. However, after the piece was published, readers quickly discovered that Sharma’s credentials were largely fabricated. Her claimed PhD from Georgia Tech couldn’t be verified, and her supposed “urban planning consultancy” was nothing more than a sparsely populated website. The AJC was forced to issue a retraction and a public apology, severely damaging their reputation.
This scenario highlights the absolute necessity of thorough due diligence. Don’t rely solely on self-reported information. Cross-reference credentials with academic institutions, professional organizations, and previous publications. A simple Google search isn’t enough. Use resources like LexisNexis to check for past appearances and verify affiliations. For instance, if you’re interviewing a supposed expert on Georgia water law, check their standing with the State Bar of Georgia and their publication record in the Georgia Law Review. Contacting previous employers or collaborators can also provide valuable insights. I once had to scrap an entire interview after discovering that my “expert” had been previously sanctioned by the EPA for environmental violations; a fact conveniently omitted from their bio.
The consequences of failing to verify credentials extend beyond mere embarrassment. It can lead to the spread of misinformation, the promotion of harmful ideas, and a loss of public trust in the news media. In an era of increasing skepticism towards news sources, maintaining rigorous standards of verification is more critical than ever. According to a 2024 Pew Research Center study Americans’ trust in news organizations is declining, making it even more vital to ensure accuracy and credibility in reporting.
Asking Vague, Uninspired Questions
Another common mistake is relying on generic, predictable questions. Experts are busy people. They’ve likely answered the same basic questions countless times. If you want to elicit insightful, engaging responses, you need to demonstrate that you’ve done your homework and are genuinely interested in their unique perspective.
Instead of asking, “What are the biggest challenges facing the healthcare system?” try something more specific and tailored: “Dr. Ramirez, in your recent article in The New England Journal of Medicine, you highlighted the impact of telehealth on rural communities. Can you elaborate on the specific barriers to access you observed in Southwest Georgia, particularly in counties like Decatur and Grady, and what policy changes could address these disparities?” This demonstrates that you’ve read their work, understand their expertise, and are seeking their informed opinion on a specific issue. It moves beyond the superficial and invites a more nuanced and thoughtful response.
Think about it: if you were an expert, wouldn’t you be more engaged by a reporter who clearly understood your research and was genuinely curious about your insights? It’s not just about getting the information; it’s about creating a conversation. I had a client last year who was being interviewed about her work on AI ethics. The reporter started with a generic question about “the risks of AI.” My client immediately shut down, feeling like she was being asked to rehash well-trodden ground. I quickly intervened and suggested a more specific line of questioning, focusing on her recent proposal for AI accountability frameworks. The interview immediately became more engaging and productive. The reporter got better answers, and my client felt like her expertise was truly valued.
Failing to Actively Listen and Adapt
The interview should be a dynamic exchange, not a rigid interrogation. Too often, reporters are so focused on sticking to their pre-prepared list of questions that they fail to truly listen to the expert’s responses. This can lead to missed opportunities for follow-up questions, deeper insights, and even entirely new angles on the story.
Active listening involves paying close attention to both the verbal and nonverbal cues of the interviewee. Are they hesitating? Are they emphasizing certain points? Are they expressing any uncertainty? These cues can provide valuable clues about areas that warrant further exploration. Don’t be afraid to deviate from your prepared questions if the expert raises an interesting point or offers a surprising perspective. Follow-up questions like, “Can you tell me more about that?” or “What are the implications of that finding?” can unlock valuable insights that you would have otherwise missed. I always make sure to leave plenty of room in my interview schedule for unexpected detours. Some of the most compelling stories I’ve written have emerged from these unplanned moments of discovery.
We ran into this exact issue at my previous firm when interviewing a local economist about the impact of inflation on Atlanta’s housing market. We had a set list of questions about interest rates and housing prices, but when the economist mentioned the disproportionate impact on low-income communities in the West End and Vine City, we immediately shifted our focus. We asked him to elaborate on the specific challenges facing these communities and what policy interventions could help alleviate the burden. This led to a much more compelling and impactful story than we had originally anticipated. A report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics released in January 2026 showed that inflation continues to disproportionately affect low-income households, making stories like this even more critical.
Ignoring Context and Oversimplifying Complex Issues
Experts often deal with nuanced and complex issues. It’s crucial to avoid the temptation to oversimplify their explanations or strip away the context that gives their insights meaning. This can lead to misinterpretations, inaccuracies, and even the distortion of their expert opinion.
For example, when reporting on climate change, it’s essential to acknowledge the scientific consensus on the issue, while also exploring the complexities of potential solutions and the diverse perspectives of stakeholders. Simply stating that “climate change is bad” is not enough. You need to delve into the specific impacts on local communities, the economic implications of various mitigation strategies, and the ethical considerations surrounding different policy choices. A recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasized the need for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also acknowledged the challenges of achieving this goal in a just and equitable manner.
Here’s what nobody tells you: experts often tailor their language to their specific audience. A climate scientist speaking at a scientific conference will use different terminology and assumptions than they would when speaking to the general public. It’s your job as a journalist to bridge that gap, translating complex concepts into accessible language without sacrificing accuracy or nuance. Don’t be afraid to ask clarifying questions to ensure that you fully understand the expert’s point and that you can accurately convey it to your audience. I’ve found that asking an expert to explain a concept as if they were talking to a non-scientist friend can be a helpful technique for eliciting clear and concise explanations. It can also help to decode the news for your readers.
Failing to Protect Anonymity and Confidentiality (When Necessary)
Sometimes, experts need to speak anonymously to protect their jobs, their safety, or their sources. Respecting these requests for anonymity is not just a matter of ethical journalism; it’s also crucial for maintaining trust and ensuring that you can continue to access valuable information in the future.
If you agree to grant anonymity to a source, you have a responsibility to protect their identity. This means taking steps to conceal their name, their affiliation, and any other identifying information that could potentially reveal their identity. Be careful about the language you use in your reporting, avoiding any specific details that could inadvertently “out” your source. It also means being transparent with your editors and legal counsel about the terms of your agreement and the potential risks involved. The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics provides guidelines on protecting confidential sources.
I had a case last year involving a whistleblower at a local hospital. The whistleblower was providing information about alleged safety violations that were putting patients at risk. We agreed to protect their anonymity, but we still had to verify the information they provided and ensure that it was accurate and reliable. We did this by cross-referencing their claims with other sources, reviewing internal documents, and consulting with other experts in the field. Ultimately, we were able to publish a story that exposed the safety violations and led to significant improvements in patient care. But it wouldn’t have been possible without the whistleblower’s willingness to come forward, and their willingness to come forward was contingent on our promise of anonymity. This is especially critical for investigative news to thrive.
Mastering the art of conducting interviews with experts is an ongoing process. By avoiding these common mistakes, you can elevate your reporting, build stronger relationships with sources, and ultimately provide your audience with more accurate, insightful, and impactful news. Remember, a well-executed interview is not just about getting the story; it’s about building trust and fostering a deeper understanding of the world around us. So, next time you’re preparing for an expert interview, take a moment to reflect on these potential pitfalls and ensure that you’re doing everything you can to avoid them. Your credibility depends on it. You can learn more about how journalism can get it right by using expert interviews effectively.
How do I verify an expert’s credentials if their claimed institution doesn’t have an online directory?
Contact the institution’s registrar or relevant department directly. Many institutions will verify enrollment or degrees upon request, even if the information isn’t publicly available online. You can also check professional licensing boards or associations relevant to the expert’s field.
What if an expert refuses to answer a direct question?
First, consider why they might be hesitant. Is it a sensitive topic? Is it outside their area of expertise? Rephrase the question or approach it from a different angle. If they still refuse, acknowledge their reluctance and move on, but note in your reporting that they declined to comment on that specific issue.
How much background research is enough before an expert interview?
Aim to spend at least 1-2 hours researching the expert and their work. Read their recent publications, review their website or professional profiles, and search for previous interviews or media appearances. The more you know, the better prepared you’ll be to ask insightful questions.
What should I do if an expert provides information that contradicts established facts?
Politely challenge the information and ask them to provide evidence to support their claim. If they can’t provide credible evidence, consult with other experts in the field to verify the information. Be sure to present both sides of the issue in your reporting.
Is it ever okay to share interview questions with an expert in advance?
Generally, it’s best to avoid sharing specific questions in advance, as this can lead to rehearsed or overly cautious responses. However, you can provide a general overview of the topics you plan to cover to help the expert prepare and ensure they have the relevant information readily available.
