Key Takeaways
- Thoroughly research an expert’s past statements, publications, and potential biases before an interview to avoid being blindsided by conflicting information or advocacy.
- Prepare a detailed interview brief, including specific questions, desired soundbites, and a clear understanding of the expert’s role, to guide the conversation and maintain focus.
- Actively listen and remain flexible during the interview, allowing for follow-up questions and unexpected insights, rather than rigidly adhering to a pre-scripted agenda.
- Challenge vague or overly academic language by asking for concrete examples, analogies, or real-world implications to make complex information accessible to a broader audience.
- Always fact-check expert claims against independent sources and be prepared to push back respectfully if information seems inconsistent or unsubstantiated.
As a seasoned news editor with over two decades in the field, I’ve seen my share of stellar interviews and absolute train wrecks. When conducting interviews with experts for news stories, the pitfalls are numerous, often subtle, and can completely derail your narrative. The difference between a compelling, informative piece and a confusing, biased mess often hinges on avoiding a few common, yet critical, mistakes. So, what are these missteps, and how can you ensure your next expert interview elevates your reporting?
Failing to Do Your Homework (Beyond a Quick Bio Scan)
Many journalists think they’ve done their due diligence by reading an expert’s university bio or the blurb on their latest book. That’s a rookie error, frankly. True preparation means digging deep into their past statements, publications, and even their social media footprint. What controversial stances have they taken? Have they contradicted themselves on previous occasions? Do they have any undisclosed affiliations that could color their perspective? These aren’t just academic questions; they’re essential for maintaining journalistic integrity.
I recall a situation a few years back where one of our junior reporters was interviewing a supposed “energy policy expert” for a story on renewable subsidies. The reporter had only skimmed the expert’s LinkedIn. During the interview, the expert began railing against solar power, citing specific, often debunked, statistics. Had the reporter dug deeper, they would have found the expert was a paid lobbyist for a major fossil fuel conglomerate. We had to scrap the interview entirely, losing valuable time and resources. That’s a hard lesson learned about the importance of thorough vetting. You need to know not just what they say, but why they say it.
This deep dive also helps you anticipate challenges. If an expert is known for using overly academic jargon, you can prepare specific questions designed to elicit simpler explanations. If they’re known for being evasive, you can craft follow-up questions that corner them into providing direct answers. This isn’t about setting traps; it’s about being prepared for the realities of human communication and expertise.
The Trap of the Unprepared Interviewer: No Brief, No Focus
Another common mistake? Going into an interview with a vague idea of what you want, or worse, just a list of generic questions. An expert’s time is valuable, and they can often detect when an interviewer is just winging it. This diminishes your credibility and can lead to a rambling, unfocused conversation that yields little usable material. We demand our reporters create a detailed interview brief for every expert conversation, regardless of the expert’s renown. This isn’t optional; it’s fundamental.
A proper brief includes:
- Specific Story Angle: How does this expert fit into the broader narrative?
- Key Questions: Not just topics, but precise questions designed to elicit specific information.
- Desired Soundbites/Quotes: What are the one or two critical points you absolutely need them to articulate?
- Areas to Avoid: Are there topics that are irrelevant, inflammatory, or outside their actual expertise?
- Expert’s Stated Expertise and Limitations: A clear understanding of what they can and cannot credibly speak to.
Without this roadmap, you’re essentially asking an expert to guess what you need. And trust me, they’re usually guessing wrong, or worse, using the opportunity to push their own agenda. I’ve seen interviews where the reporter gets an hour with a leading economist, only to come back with quotes about social trends that are barely relevant to the financial crisis story they were assigned. That’s a failure of preparation, pure and simple. You need to guide the conversation decisively.
Passive Listening and Rigid Questioning
This might seem counterintuitive after emphasizing preparation, but there’s a fine line between being prepared and being inflexible. Many reporters, especially those newer to the craft, cling to their pre-written questions with an almost religious fervor. They’ll ask question A, get an interesting but tangential answer, and then immediately jump to question B without acknowledging or following up on the expert’s unexpected insight. This is passive listening, and it’s a profound disservice to both the expert and your audience.
The best interviews feel like a dynamic conversation, not an interrogation. You need to listen actively, process what the expert is saying in real-time, and be prepared to deviate from your script if a more compelling thread emerges. Sometimes, the most valuable information comes from an offhand comment or a digression that you wouldn’t have anticipated. I once had a reporter interviewing a cybersecurity expert about ransomware. The expert mentioned, almost as an aside, a nascent form of AI-driven phishing that was far more sophisticated than anything publicly known. Our reporter, instead of sticking to the ransomware script, pivoted immediately, asking for details, examples, and implications. That pivot turned a standard story into an exclusive, breaking news piece. That’s the power of active listening and flexibility.
Furthermore, don’t be afraid to challenge an expert respectfully. If they offer vague generalizations, ask for specifics. “Can you give me a concrete example of that?” or “How would that impact the average person in Atlanta?” These questions force them to translate academic concepts into relatable terms, which is gold for news reporting. If they use jargon, interrupt politely and ask for a simpler explanation. Your audience isn’t composed of PhDs, and it’s your job to be their translator.
Ignoring Bias and Lack of Nuance
Every expert has a perspective, and often, that perspective comes with inherent biases. Ignoring this or failing to probe it is a significant ethical lapse. Whether it’s a corporate affiliation, a political leaning, or even just a strong academic school of thought, these biases can subtly (or not-so-subtly) shape their answers. Your role isn’t to eliminate their bias, but to understand it, acknowledge it, and potentially even incorporate it into your reporting for a more complete picture.
For instance, if you’re interviewing an economist from a conservative think tank about tax policy, their arguments for lower corporate taxes will likely be presented as universally beneficial. A skilled interviewer will ask, “While those are clear benefits, what are some potential drawbacks or criticisms of that approach, even from within your own field?” Or, “How do you respond to arguments that such policies disproportionately benefit large corporations over small businesses?” This isn’t confrontational; it’s pursuing nuance. A strong interview includes counterpoints, even if they come from the expert themselves when prompted. The goal is to present a balanced view, not just echo one side.
Case Study: The Fulton County Infrastructure Debate
Consider a story we ran last year on the proposed expansion of I-285 through North Fulton County. We interviewed Dr. Anya Sharma, a civil engineering professor at Georgia Tech, known for her work on urban planning. Initially, she spoke eloquently about traffic flow models and the projected decrease in commute times. Our reporter, knowing Dr. Sharma also served on the board of a prominent urban conservation group, pressed her on the environmental impact. The initial response was general, but the reporter pushed: “Dr. Sharma, while the traffic models are clear, what about the specific impact on the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, which falls directly in the proposed expansion path? Are there specific mitigation strategies being considered, or are we simply accepting that environmental cost for traffic efficiency?”
This led to a candid discussion where Dr. Sharma acknowledged the significant environmental trade-offs, something she initially downplayed. She even provided specific data points about projected tree loss and potential watershed disruption. By not just taking her initial, more positive assessment at face value and instead probing her known, albeit less emphasized, environmental concerns, we got a much more nuanced and complete story. The article then presented both the traffic benefits and the environmental costs, allowing our readers to form their own, more informed opinions. This requires diligence, a good memory for details, and the courage to ask uncomfortable questions.
Forgetting Your Audience: Jargon and Over-Complication
Experts often live in their specific fields, speaking a language only understood by their peers. It’s easy for a reporter to get caught up in the technical details, forgetting that the average reader doesn’t have a PhD in quantum physics or municipal finance. The biggest mistake here is allowing an expert to speak in impenetrable jargon without demanding clarification. Your audience isn’t just listening; they’re trying to understand, and if they can’t, they’ll tune out.
I constantly remind my team: “If you don’t understand it, your reader won’t either.” This means actively interrupting, politely but firmly, to ask for definitions, analogies, and real-world implications. “When you say ‘quantitative easing,’ can you explain that in terms a small business owner in Decatur would understand?” or “Could you give me an example of ‘supply chain resilience’ that goes beyond just theoretical models?” Force them to break it down. Their expertise is valuable only if it can be communicated effectively.
Another aspect of this is avoiding the temptation to showcase your own, perhaps limited, understanding of the expert’s field. Some reporters try to impress experts by using their jargon, which often backfires. It can lead to misinterpretations, and more importantly, it means you’re not doing your job of translating for the public. You are the bridge between the ivory tower and Main Street. Embrace that role.
The art of conducting interviews with experts is less about asking the “right” questions and more about asking the smart questions, listening intently, and having the courage to challenge. It’s about being prepared, being flexible, and always, always keeping your audience at the forefront of your mind. Mastering these elements transforms an expert interview from a mere transcription into a powerful tool for public enlightenment.
How do I handle an expert who is evasive or refuses to answer certain questions?
If an expert is evasive, rephrase your question, try a different angle, or ask for specific examples. You can also directly address their evasiveness by saying, “I understand you might not want to discuss that directly, but can you speak to the general challenges or trends related to that topic?” If they refuse entirely, respect their decision but make a note of it for your reporting, as their refusal can sometimes be as newsworthy as an answer.
What’s the best way to fact-check an expert’s claims during or after an interview?
During the interview, if a claim sounds dubious, you can ask, “What’s the source for that statistic?” or “Is there a study you can point me to that supports that?” After the interview, always cross-reference key facts and figures with at least two independent, reputable sources like government reports, academic papers, or established wire services such as AP News or Reuters. Never assume an expert’s word is gospel without verification.
Should I send my questions to the expert in advance?
I generally advise against sending a full list of specific questions in advance. Providing a broad overview of the topics you’d like to discuss and the general angle of your story is helpful for the expert to prepare. However, giving them all your questions can lead to overly rehearsed answers, or worse, allow them to prepare evasions. Keep some element of spontaneity to encourage more candid and natural responses.
How do I manage an expert who tries to control the interview or steer it off-topic?
Politely but firmly redirect them. You can say, “That’s an interesting point, but I want to bring us back to [original topic]” or “I appreciate your perspective on that, but for this story, we’re focusing on [specific issue].” Maintain control by reiterating your objectives and gently interrupting if necessary. Remember, it’s your interview, and you’re responsible for getting the information you need for your story.
What if an expert uses highly technical terms that I don’t understand?
Immediately ask for clarification. Do not pretend to understand. You can say, “Could you break that down for me in simpler terms?” or “Can you give me an analogy that helps explain that concept?” Sometimes, an expert might even have a visual aid or a simple explanation ready if prompted. Your job is to ensure the information is accessible, and that starts with your own clear understanding.
