Conducting interviews with experts is a cornerstone of credible news reporting. However, even seasoned journalists can fall into traps that undermine the integrity and impact of their stories. Are you making mistakes that are costing you audience trust and diminishing the value of your reporting?
Key Takeaways
- Always verify an expert’s credentials independently, going beyond what they present to you.
- Craft open-ended questions that encourage experts to provide detailed explanations rather than simple yes/no answers.
- Actively listen and adapt your interview questions based on the expert’s responses, demonstrating genuine engagement and follow-up.
Failing to Verify Credentials
In the rush to publish, it’s tempting to take an expert’s self-proclaimed credentials at face value. Don’t. A flashy title or impressive-sounding organization on a business card doesn’t guarantee actual expertise. We had a situation here in Atlanta just last year, where a supposed “cybersecurity expert” was quoted extensively in several local news outlets about a data breach at a Buckhead financial firm. It later turned out that his “doctorate” was from an unaccredited online university and his experience was largely self-taught. The outlets were forced to issue corrections, damaging their reputations.
Always independently verify an expert’s credentials. Check their educational background through university websites. Look for peer-reviewed publications or professional certifications. Contact previous employers or colleagues to confirm their experience. A quick search on LinkedIn isn’t enough. For example, if someone claims to be an expert in Georgia election law, verify their active status with the State Bar of Georgia. Don’t just ask for credentials; demand proof.
Asking Leading Questions
The goal of an interview is to elicit information, not to confirm your own biases. Leading questions, those that subtly suggest the desired answer, can skew the expert’s response and compromise the objectivity of your reporting. Consider this: Instead of asking, “Don’t you think that the mayor’s new housing policy will exacerbate gentrification in the Old Fourth Ward?”, try asking, “What are the potential impacts of the mayor’s new housing policy on the Old Fourth Ward?” The first question pushes the expert toward a predetermined conclusion. The second allows them to offer a more nuanced and unbiased assessment.
Open-ended questions are your best friend. Who, what, when, where, why, and how questions encourage experts to elaborate and provide detailed explanations. They also allow for unexpected insights that you might have missed with more narrowly focused questions. Learn to embrace the silence that follows a good question. Give the expert time to formulate a thoughtful response. Avoid interrupting with follow-up questions until they’ve fully answered the initial one.
Poor Listening and Lack of Follow-Up
An interview isn’t a script to be read; it’s a conversation to be had. One of the biggest mistakes I see is journalists sticking rigidly to their prepared questions, regardless of what the expert is actually saying. This is a recipe for missed opportunities and superficial reporting.
Active listening is paramount. Pay attention not only to the expert’s words but also to their tone, body language, and any underlying emotions. Are they hesitant about a particular topic? Do they seem particularly passionate about another? Use these cues to guide your follow-up questions. Don’t be afraid to deviate from your prepared list if the conversation takes an interesting turn. Some of the most valuable insights come from unexpected tangents.
It’s okay to admit you don’t understand something. Asking for clarification is a sign of intelligence, not ignorance. It also demonstrates respect for the expert’s knowledge and ensures that you’re accurately conveying their information to your audience. For example, instead of nodding along to a complex explanation of blockchain technology, say, “Could you explain that in simpler terms for our viewers?”
Failure to Challenge Assumptions
Experts, like everyone else, can be subject to biases and blind spots. It’s your job as a journalist to identify and challenge these assumptions, not to blindly accept them as fact. This doesn’t mean being combative or disrespectful. It means asking critical questions and seeking alternative perspectives.
Consider this scenario: You’re interviewing an economist about the potential impact of rising interest rates on the Atlanta housing market. They argue that the market will remain stable due to strong demand and limited supply. Instead of simply accepting this assertion, ask for specific data to support their claim. What evidence suggests that demand will remain strong despite higher borrowing costs? Are there any factors that could increase supply, such as new construction or foreclosures? A healthy dose of skepticism is essential for responsible journalism.
I had a client last year who was writing a piece on the impact of the new I-285 toll lanes. The “expert” she interviewed from a local transportation advocacy group claimed the lanes would significantly reduce congestion. However, she failed to ask about the potential impact on lower-income commuters who couldn’t afford the tolls. By not challenging this assumption, she missed a crucial aspect of the story.
Neglecting Context and Nuance
Sound bites and sensational headlines may grab attention, but they often sacrifice context and nuance. Complex issues rarely have simple answers. It’s your responsibility to provide your audience with the full picture, even if it means challenging their preconceived notions.
A Pew Research Center study found that many Americans get their news from social media, where information is often presented in a fragmented and decontextualized way. As a journalist, you have a duty to counteract this trend by providing in-depth analysis and background information. For example, if you’re reporting on a new bill passed by the Georgia General Assembly, don’t just focus on the immediate impact. Explain the bill’s legislative history, the arguments for and against it, and the potential long-term consequences. A recent article on AP News highlighted the importance of providing context when reporting on complex political issues.
To avoid this, consider how data-driven news can help provide a clearer picture. This approach ensures your audience is well-informed.
Case Study: Reporting on the Proposed BeltLine Expansion
Let’s say you’re a reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution covering the proposed expansion of the Atlanta BeltLine into southwest Atlanta. You need to interview experts to provide insights into the project’s potential impact. Here’s how to avoid common pitfalls:
- Mistake: Only interviewing representatives from the Atlanta BeltLine Partnership.
- Better Approach: Interview residents from the affected neighborhoods, urban planning experts from Georgia Tech, and economists specializing in urban development.
- Mistake: Asking leading questions like, “Isn’t the BeltLine expansion going to be great for property values?”
- Better Approach: Asking open-ended questions like, “What are the potential economic and social impacts of the BeltLine expansion on the surrounding communities?”
- Mistake: Failing to challenge the assumption that the BeltLine expansion will benefit everyone equally.
- Better Approach: Asking about potential displacement of long-term residents, the affordability of housing near the BeltLine, and the impact on local businesses.
By taking a more rigorous and nuanced approach, you can provide your audience with a more complete and accurate understanding of the BeltLine expansion and its potential consequences.
Remember, conducting effective interviews with experts isn’t just about asking the right questions; it’s about listening actively, challenging assumptions, and providing context. By avoiding these common mistakes, you can produce news that is both informative and impactful. Don’t let laziness or bias undermine your credibility.
Consider also the importance of avoiding ethnocentric reporting to ensure comprehensive and fair coverage.
How do I handle an expert who is evasive or unwilling to answer certain questions?
Politely but firmly reiterate the importance of transparency and accountability. If the expert continues to evade, consider informing your audience that they were unwilling to address specific concerns. Document their refusal in your reporting. Sometimes, the unwillingness to answer is as revealing as the answer itself.
What should I do if an expert provides inaccurate or misleading information?
Immediately fact-check the information using reliable sources. If you determine that the expert has provided inaccurate or misleading information, confront them with the evidence and give them an opportunity to correct their statement. If they refuse, be sure to include a correction or clarification in your reporting.
How can I ensure that I’m not being manipulated by an expert with a hidden agenda?
Research the expert’s affiliations and funding sources. Be aware of any potential conflicts of interest. Ask critical questions and challenge their assumptions. Seek out alternative perspectives from other experts with different viewpoints. A little bit of healthy paranoia can be a journalist’s best friend.
Is it ethical to pay an expert for an interview?
Generally, no. Paying an expert can create a conflict of interest and compromise their objectivity. It can also raise questions about the credibility of your reporting. There may be exceptions in certain circumstances, such as when an expert is providing specialized consulting services or sharing proprietary data, but these situations should be carefully considered and disclosed to your audience.
How do I prepare for an interview with an expert on a topic I know little about?
Do your homework. Read up on the topic using reliable sources. Identify key terms and concepts. Prepare a list of questions that will help you understand the basics. Don’t be afraid to admit your ignorance and ask the expert to explain things in simple terms. Remember, your audience is likely in the same boat as you.
Elevating your reporting means mastering the art of the expert interview. Start by auditing your past work: Did you really verify credentials? Did you let assumptions slide? Make those changes today for a demonstrable improvement in the quality of your news reporting tomorrow.
