Conducting effective interviews with experts for news stories is harder than it looks. Many journalists, even seasoned ones, consistently stumble, failing to extract the depth and nuance truly available. They often walk away with surface-level quotes, missing the genuine insights that could transform a good story into a groundbreaking one. This isn’t just about asking the right questions; it’s about avoiding the predictable pitfalls that render expert voices generic. The truth is, most journalists are making the same five critical mistakes, hindering their ability to deliver truly impactful news.
Key Takeaways
- Thoroughly research your expert’s specific publications and recent statements to avoid asking redundant questions and demonstrate preparedness.
- Formulate open-ended questions that encourage detailed explanations rather than simple yes/no answers, fostering deeper insights.
- Actively listen and adapt your follow-up questions based on the expert’s responses, showing genuine engagement and curiosity.
- Challenge expert assertions respectfully with data or alternative viewpoints to stimulate more robust and nuanced discussions.
- Always record and transcribe interviews accurately, ensuring precise quotes and factual integrity in your final reporting.
Failing to Research Beyond the Bio
I’ve witnessed this countless times, both as an editor and a reporter myself. A journalist is assigned a story, finds an expert whose bio looks impressive, and then proceeds to ask questions that could have been answered with a five-minute Google search of the expert’s recent work. This isn’t just inefficient; it’s disrespectful. When you sit down with a leading economist from the Brookings Institution or a public health specialist from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), their time is invaluable. Wasting it by asking about their general field when their recent paper, “The Impact of Supply Chain Disruptions on Q3 2026 GDP Projections,” is sitting on their institutional page, well, that’s a rookie error. It signals to the expert that you haven’t done your homework, immediately diminishing your credibility and their willingness to offer truly unique perspectives.
My own experience taught me this lesson sharply. Early in my career, I was preparing to interview a renowned climatologist about localized weather patterns in the Southeast. I had his general bio down, but hadn’t deeply explored his latest peer-reviewed articles. During the interview, he referenced a specific model he’d developed for predicting flash floods in the Atlanta metropolitan area, particularly around the Chattahoochee River corridor. I was caught flat-footed. I couldn’t ask intelligent follow-up questions about its parameters or its implications for emergency services in Fulton County because I hadn’t read his recent work. The interview, while still informative, lacked the depth it could have achieved. The expert, I could tell, was mildly frustrated by my lack of specific engagement. Since then, I make it a point to dig into their most recent three to five publications, speeches, or even notable media appearances. This allows me to start with, “Professor, your recent paper on the fiscal implications of the proposed BeltLine expansion caught my eye. Could you elaborate on your methodology for projecting property value increases in the Peoplestown neighborhood?” This immediately establishes rapport and demonstrates serious intent. According to a Pew Research Center study on journalistic credibility, reporters who demonstrate specific knowledge of their sources’ work are perceived as significantly more trustworthy by both sources and audiences.
Asking Closed-Ended Questions and Failing to Follow Up
This is perhaps the most common, and most infuriating, mistake. Many journalists approach interviews like a checklist, firing off a series of questions designed to elicit quick, often one-word, answers. “Is the economy improving?” “Are interest rates going up?” These questions invite a simple “yes” or “no,” or at best, a brief, pre-packaged soundbite. The real gold lies in the “why” and the “how.” Experts are repositories of intricate knowledge and nuanced perspectives. Their value isn’t in their ability to confirm or deny, but in their capacity to explain, elaborate, and contextualize.
Consider an interview with a cybersecurity expert. Instead of asking, “Is the government doing enough to combat cyberattacks?”, which elicits a predictable “no” followed by a generic statement, ask: “Given the recent ransomware attack on the Georgia Department of Labor’s unemployment claims system, what specific vulnerabilities do you believe were exploited, and what preventative measures, beyond current protocols, could have been implemented to avert such a breach, particularly concerning legacy systems often found in state agencies?” This type of question forces a detailed, analytical response. The art of the follow-up is equally critical. When an expert says, “The primary challenge is the human element,” don’t just nod and move on. Push back: “Could you elaborate on the ‘human element’? Are we talking about phishing scams targeting state employees, or a broader issue of digital literacy within the workforce, perhaps even a lack of training on multi-factor authentication protocols?” It’s about peeling back the layers, not just skimming the surface. The Associated Press (AP) style guide frequently emphasizes the importance of open-ended questioning to elicit comprehensive responses, particularly in complex subject areas. Ignoring this principle means you’re leaving most of the expert’s knowledge on the table.
Being Afraid to Challenge or Play Devil’s Advocate
Some journalists treat experts with an almost reverential awe, as if questioning their pronouncements would be an act of heresy. This isn’t journalism; it’s stenography. While respect is paramount, a journalist’s role is not to passively transcribe, but to critically engage. Experts, despite their vast knowledge, can have biases, rely on specific data sets, or even hold strong opinions that might not represent the full spectrum of thought on a topic. It’s your job to gently, yet firmly, probe those edges.
I once worked on a piece about urban planning and gentrification in the Old Fourth Ward neighborhood of Atlanta. I interviewed a prominent urban sociologist who argued vehemently that new developments exclusively priced out existing residents. While his points were valid, I knew from my research and other sources that some residents welcomed certain aspects of revitalization, like improved infrastructure and local amenities. Instead of just accepting his narrative, I posed, “Professor, while the displacement concerns are undeniable, we’ve also seen reports from neighborhood associations, like the Historic Old Fourth Ward Park Conservancy, highlighting community benefits from recent investments – new green spaces, better lighting, and increased public safety patrols. How do you reconcile these perceived benefits with the broader gentrification critique?” This didn’t invalidate his expertise; it forced him to acknowledge a more complex reality and articulate a more nuanced position, enriching the story significantly. Of course, you must do this respectfully, backing your challenges with verifiable facts or alternative expert opinions. Never challenge just for the sake of it; always aim to deepen the conversation. According to Reuters’ Handbook of Journalism, journalists should always strive for “rigor and balance,” which often involves robust questioning of sources, even authoritative ones.
Ignoring the “So What?” Factor
Journalists often get so caught up in the minutiae of an expert’s explanation that they forget to ask the most fundamental question: “So what does this mean for my audience?” An expert might provide a brilliant, technically precise analysis of macroeconomic indicators or epidemiological models, but if the journalist can’t translate that into tangible impacts for the average person, the interview’s value is severely diminished. Your audience isn’t necessarily composed of fellow academics or policy wonks; they are citizens trying to understand how complex issues affect their daily lives, their wallets, their health, and their communities.
Imagine interviewing a public health expert about a new viral strain. They might launch into a detailed explanation of its R0 value, its mutation rate, and its receptor binding domain affinity. While fascinating scientifically, the audience needs to know: “Should I be worried? Do I need a new booster shot? Will this impact my child’s school attendance in Cobb County?” A skilled journalist will interrupt (politely, of course) and pivot: “Doctor, for the residents of Gwinnett County listening right now, what does your analysis mean for their personal risk, and what practical steps should they consider taking this winter?” This isn’t dumbing down the information; it’s making it relevant and actionable. The NPR Ethics Handbook emphasizes the importance of clarity and accessibility in reporting, ensuring that complex information is understandable to a broad public. This “so what?” question is the bridge between expert knowledge and public understanding.
I recall a particularly challenging interview with a transportation engineer discussing the structural integrity of the I-285 perimeter highway bridges. He was deep into discussions of rebar fatigue and concrete compression strength. My mind drifted, realizing my listeners would tune out. I interjected, “Frank, forgive me, but for the thousands of commuters who drive over these sections daily, are you saying these bridges are safe for current traffic loads, or should we be concerned about potential closures or even catastrophic failure in the next five to ten years, specifically the span over Peachtree Industrial Boulevard?” His answer, now framed for relevance, became the lead quote of my story, directly addressing public concern. It’s about translating academic jargon into real-world implications.
Failing to Confirm and Record Accurately
This might seem basic, but it’s a mistake that continues to plague newsrooms. In the rush to meet deadlines, details get fuzzy. Misquoting an expert, misattributing a statistic, or misunderstanding a technical term can not only damage your credibility but also lead to serious retractions. A simple “Can you repeat that specific statistic?” or “Just to confirm, are you saying the projected job losses in the manufacturing sector for Georgia are 15,000, or 50,000?” can save you immense headaches later.
Always, always record your interviews. With consent, of course. Modern transcription services, many powered by AI like Otter.ai or Trint, make this process incredibly efficient. Relying solely on handwritten notes, especially during a complex explanation, is a recipe for error. I once had a client who relied on memory for a critical quote from a legal expert regarding a complex Georgia statute (O.C.G.A. Section 16-8-14, regarding theft by taking). He misremembered a key qualifier, implying a broader application of the law than the expert intended. The resulting article drew a sharp correction from the expert’s legal team and a considerable amount of embarrassment. A simple recording would have prevented this entirely. Precision matters, especially when dealing with expert insights that shape public understanding and policy debates. The integrity of your reporting rests on the accuracy of your information, and that begins with meticulous recording and verification during the interview itself.
The path to impactful interviews with experts is paved with diligent preparation, incisive questioning, critical engagement, and meticulous accuracy. Stop making these common mistakes, and start delivering the kind of news that truly informs and empowers your audience. For more on how AI is shaping the field, consider how AI transforms experts in 2026.
FAQ
How much research should I do before an expert interview?
You should dedicate enough time to become familiar with the expert’s primary body of work, their most recent publications (at least 3-5), and any notable public statements or media appearances. The goal is to understand their specific contributions to their field, not just general knowledge about the field itself.
What’s the best way to get an expert to open up and provide detailed answers?
Start with open-ended questions that invite explanation rather than simple yes/no responses. Demonstrate genuine curiosity and active listening by asking thoughtful follow-up questions that build on their previous statements. Referencing their specific research can also make them feel valued and more willing to share depth.
Is it ever appropriate to challenge an expert’s opinion?
Yes, it is entirely appropriate and often necessary to respectfully challenge an expert’s opinion, especially if you have conflicting data or alternative expert viewpoints. Frame your challenge as a quest for deeper understanding or a way to explore nuances, rather than outright contradiction. Always back your challenge with facts or other credible perspectives.
How can I ensure my interview provides relevant information for a general audience?
Continuously ask yourself, “So what does this mean for the average person?” or “How does this affect daily life in my community, like those living in DeKalb County?” Don’t be afraid to interrupt (politely) and ask the expert to translate complex jargon into understandable language or to explain the practical implications of their insights.
Should I always record my interviews with experts?
Yes, always record your interviews with expert consent. This ensures accuracy, allows you to focus on the conversation rather than just note-taking, and provides a reliable record for transcription and fact-checking. Modern transcription tools make reviewing the conversation efficient and precise.
