Expert Interviews: Are You Making These Mistakes?

Did you know that nearly 60% of expert interviews fail to resonate with audiences because they lack a clear, compelling narrative? Interviews with experts are a powerful tool for news organizations, but are you making these common mistakes that prevent your stories from truly captivating readers?

The 57% Problem: Unclear Narrative Structure

A recent study by the American Press Institute found that 57% of expert interviews are perceived as “difficult to follow” due to a lack of clear narrative structure. That is, the interview jumps around, lacks a central thesis, or fails to connect the expert’s insights to a broader story. We’ve all seen it: the interview that feels like a transcript dump, not a compelling piece of journalism. As a news editor myself, I’ve seen countless interviews that, while full of valuable information, ultimately fail to engage the reader because they lack a guiding thread.

What does this mean? It’s not enough to simply record an interview and transcribe it. You need to craft a narrative around the expert’s words. This requires careful planning, targeted questions, and a willingness to edit and reshape the interview into a coherent story. For example, if you’re interviewing an economist about rising inflation in the Atlanta metro area, don’t just ask general questions. Ask specifically about the impact on families in specific neighborhoods like Grant Park or East Atlanta Village, and weave their answers into a story about how those families are coping. I remember once working on a story about the impact of the new I-285 toll lanes on Cobb County commuters. We interviewed a transportation planner, but the interview only came alive when we focused on the specific experiences of drivers who used the lanes daily. The expert’s insights then provided context and analysis for those individual stories. Don’t let your expert’s valuable insights get lost in a jumble of disconnected quotes.

The 32% Oversight: Forgetting the Audience

According to a Pew Research Center study, 32% of expert interviews fail to connect with the general public because they use excessive jargon or assume too much prior knowledge. The expert might be speaking to other experts, not your average reader flipping through the Sunday paper.

My interpretation? Your job as a journalist is to translate expertise into accessible language. This means asking clarifying questions (“Can you explain that term in layman’s terms?”), providing context, and avoiding overly technical language. Imagine you are explaining the topic to a friend who knows nothing about it. Consider this scenario: you are interviewing a cybersecurity expert about the latest ransomware attack on Fulton County’s IT systems. If the expert starts talking about “zero-day exploits” and “phishing vectors,” you need to gently guide them towards simpler language. Ask them to explain what those terms mean in plain English and provide real-world examples. Don’t be afraid to interrupt and ask for clarification – your audience will thank you. I had a client last year who was an expert in municipal bond markets. I constantly pushed him to explain complex financial concepts in terms that a small business owner could understand. It’s about respecting the audience and making the information accessible.

The 18% Blind Spot: Lack of Critical Scrutiny

A report from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press indicates that 18% of expert interviews lack critical scrutiny, essentially becoming uncritical platforms for the expert’s views. This can damage your credibility and mislead your audience.

What I take from this? You are not simply a stenographer. Your job is to ask tough questions, challenge assumptions, and verify facts. Don’t be afraid to play devil’s advocate. If an expert makes a claim, ask them to back it up with evidence. If their views seem biased, point it out. For instance, if you are interviewing a lobbyist about proposed changes to Georgia’s environmental regulations (O.C.G.A. Section 12-5-20), you need to be aware of their potential conflicts of interest and ask them about them directly. What are their organization’s ties to the industries that would benefit from these changes? What are their financial stakes in the outcome? The goal is not to be adversarial, but to ensure that your audience is getting a complete and balanced picture. This is where experience really matters. Seasoned journalists know how to ask the right questions and spot potential red flags. Here’s what nobody tells you: experts are often paid to have an opinion. It’s your job to find out who’s paying them. To rebuild trust with interviews, be sure to do your homework.

The 8% Oversight: Neglecting Visuals and Multimedia

A study by the Knight Foundation found that only 8% of news organizations consistently incorporate visuals and multimedia elements into their expert interviews. In a world dominated by video and interactive content, this is a missed opportunity to enhance engagement and reach a wider audience.

My professional interpretation? Don’t just rely on text. Use photos, videos, charts, and interactive graphics to bring your expert interviews to life. If you’re interviewing a chef about a new restaurant opening in Midtown Atlanta, include photos of their signature dishes. If you’re interviewing a data scientist about crime trends in Buckhead, create interactive maps showing crime hotspots. If you’re interviewing a healthcare administrator from Emory University Hospital about the latest advancements in cancer treatment, include videos of the technology in action. We recently worked on a story about the revitalization of the West End neighborhood. We didn’t just interview community leaders – we created a short documentary featuring residents sharing their stories and showcasing the area’s cultural landmarks. This added depth and emotion to the story that text alone could not have achieved. This may require a larger budget but it will increase the appeal of your news.

Challenging Conventional Wisdom: The “Neutral Expert” Myth

The conventional wisdom often holds that experts should be presented as completely neutral and objective sources of information. I disagree. While it’s important to avoid bias and present all sides of an issue, pretending that experts don’t have perspectives or opinions is disingenuous. In fact, it can be more helpful to your audience to understand the expert’s background, biases, and motivations. Transparency is key. Are they affiliated with a particular political party or advocacy group? Have they received funding from a specific industry? By disclosing these potential conflicts of interest, you can empower your audience to evaluate the expert’s claims more critically. It’s about providing context, not censoring opinions. The idea of a truly “neutral” expert is often a fallacy. Everyone has a perspective, shaped by their experiences and affiliations. Acknowledging this upfront can actually build trust with your audience. I’ve always found it more effective to be upfront about potential biases than to pretend they don’t exist. It’s a matter of intellectual honesty.

For example, let’s say you’re interviewing an urban planning expert about proposed zoning changes near the BeltLine. They’re advocating for increased density. Instead of just presenting them as a neutral voice, acknowledge that they’ve previously worked as a consultant for developers who stand to benefit from those changes. This doesn’t invalidate their expertise, but it provides your audience with a more complete picture. They can then weigh the expert’s opinions in light of their potential biases. This approach requires more work, more research, and more courage. But it ultimately leads to more credible and impactful journalism.

Take this fictional case study: The “Smart City” Initiative in Alpharetta. A news team spent 3 weeks investigating a new “Smart City” initiative. They interviewed 5 experts: a technology consultant, a city council member, a privacy advocate, a local business owner, and a community organizer. Initially, the team presented all the experts as neutral voices, simply presenting their opinions. However, after further investigation, they discovered that the technology consultant had a significant financial stake in the project. The consultant’s firm was contracted to provide the technology for the initiative. The city council member had received campaign donations from the consultant’s firm. The privacy advocate was concerned about the potential for data breaches and surveillance. The local business owner was worried about the impact on small businesses. The community organizer was concerned about the lack of community input in the planning process. The team then re-structured the story to highlight these potential conflicts of interest and concerns. They included visuals, such as maps showing the locations of the proposed technology infrastructure and charts showing the campaign donations. The revised story generated significantly more engagement and debate than the original version. It also led to increased scrutiny of the “Smart City” initiative by the public and the city council.

Stop letting valuable insights gather dust. The key is to approach interviews with experts not as passive recordings, but as opportunities to craft compelling, informative, and engaging stories that truly serve your audience. Start today by focusing on narrative clarity, audience accessibility, critical scrutiny, and multimedia integration, and your news reporting will stand out. Get beyond the headlines with deep analysis, and your news reporting will stand out.