When conducting interviews with experts for news stories, the pitfalls are numerous, often subtle, and can severely undermine the credibility of your reporting. Many journalists, even seasoned ones, make fundamental errors that compromise the integrity of their expert commentary. But what truly separates a compelling, authoritative interview from a forgettable, misleading one?
Key Takeaways
- Always conduct thorough pre-interview research on both the topic and the expert to formulate precise, informed questions.
- Prioritize asking open-ended questions that encourage detailed explanations and avoid leading the expert to a predetermined answer.
- Confirm the expert’s specific area of specialization to ensure their insights are directly relevant and authoritative for the angle of your story.
- Challenge vague statements or generalizations by requesting concrete examples, data, or specific case studies to add depth and credibility.
- Establish clear ground rules for the interview regarding attribution, off-the-record comments, and fact-checking before recording begins.
The Peril of Insufficient Preparation
My biggest frustration, both as a journalist conducting interviews and as an expert being interviewed, stems from a lack of preparation. It’s a cardinal sin. You wouldn’t walk into a courtroom without understanding the case, so why approach an expert interview with anything less? This isn’t just about knowing your topic; it’s about knowing who you’re talking to and why.
Too often, I’ve seen reporters jump on a call, armed with only a superficial understanding of the subject matter. They’ve perhaps read a headline or a press release, but they haven’t delved into the nuances. This manifests in generic questions that elicit equally generic answers. For instance, if you’re interviewing a cybersecurity expert about the latest ransomware trends, asking “What’s new in ransomware?” is an amateur mistake. A prepared journalist would ask about the rise of specific attack vectors, like supply chain vulnerabilities, or the impact of nation-state actors on particular industries, referencing recent incidents. According to a report by Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/cyber-insurance-costs-soar-ransomware-attacks-persist-2023-11-08/), cyber insurance premiums have skyrocketed due to the persistence of ransomware, a detail that immediately elevates a conversation. Without that background, you’re just fishing.
Another aspect of poor preparation is failing to research the expert themselves. What are their specific qualifications? Have they published recent papers? What is their stance on controversial aspects of the topic? I once had a client, a junior reporter, who was interviewing a leading economist about inflation. The reporter spent ten minutes asking questions that were easily answerable with a quick search of the economist’s public statements. Not only did it waste valuable interview time, but it also signaled to the expert that their time wasn’t valued. The economist, understandably, became less engaged. We want experts to feel their insights are genuinely sought after, not that they’re filling in blanks for someone who couldn’t be bothered to do their homework.
| Factor | Traditional Interview Approach | Strategic Expert Engagement |
|---|---|---|
| Data Verification | Relies heavily on expert’s memory. | Cross-references with public records. |
| Bias Mitigation | Minimal, often overlooks expert’s agenda. | Uses multiple sources, diverse perspectives. |
| Future Trend Accuracy | Often speculative, lacks empirical backing. | Leverages predictive analytics, data models. |
| Regulatory Compliance | May miss evolving legal requirements. | Integrates legal counsel, compliance checks. |
| Audience Trust Score | Moderate, susceptible to single-source doubt. | High, built on transparency and rigor. |
Asking the Wrong Questions: Leading, Vague, and Closed-Ended
The quality of your interview is directly proportional to the quality of your questions. This seems obvious, yet it’s where many reporters falter. My philosophy is simple: avoid leading questions at all costs. A leading question, like “Don’t you agree that the new policy will harm small businesses?”, puts words in the expert’s mouth. It biases the response and undermines the expert’s independent authority. Instead, ask “What potential impacts, positive or negative, do you foresee for small businesses as a result of the new policy?” This invites a comprehensive, unbiased answer.
Similarly, vague questions yield vague answers. “Tell me about the economy” is practically useless. Break it down. “Given the Federal Reserve’s recent interest rate hike, what specific sectors do you anticipate will feel the most immediate impact?” or “How might the current geopolitical climate influence consumer spending patterns in the next quarter?” These questions provide a framework for a detailed response. When I was a news editor, I’d often send reporters back to reformulate questions that were too broad. It’s about precision, not volume.
Finally, relying on too many closed-ended questions is a missed opportunity. While “yes/no” questions have their place for factual confirmation, they rarely uncover deeper insights. An expert’s value lies in their ability to explain complex issues, provide context, and offer nuanced perspectives. If you ask, “Is the market volatile?” (a closed question), you get a simple “Yes.” If you ask, “To what extent is the market currently volatile, and what are the underlying drivers of this volatility?” (an open question), you unlock a wealth of valuable information. I insist my team craft questions that begin with “how,” “why,” or “what specific factors.” This forces the expert to elaborate, making for much richer content.
Failing to Challenge and Clarify: The Echo Chamber Effect
One of the most insidious mistakes is allowing an expert’s statements to go unchallenged or unclarified. This isn’t about being confrontational for the sake of it, but about ensuring accuracy, depth, and avoiding the creation of an echo chamber. I’ve seen reporters simply transcribe an expert’s quotes without probing deeper, especially when the expert’s view aligns with the reporter’s preconceived narrative. This is lazy journalism and it’s dangerous.
Experts, like anyone else, can make assumptions, use jargon, or present information from a particular bias. Your job is to be the audience’s proxy. If an expert uses a term like “quantitative easing,” don’t just nod along. Ask, “For our readers who might not be familiar, could you briefly explain what quantitative easing entails and its typical effects?” This shows you’re thinking about your audience, not just yourself.
Furthermore, if an expert makes a sweeping generalization, politely ask for evidence or an example. If they say, “Public trust in institutions is at an all-time low,” you should follow up with, “What specific data or trends support that claim? Are there particular institutions where this decline is more pronounced?” A Pew Research Center (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/11/08/public-trust-in-government-1958-2023/) study from late 2023, for example, could provide the concrete data needed to back such a statement. Without such a challenge, you’re merely amplifying an opinion without verifying its foundation. My experience has shown that experts respect this kind of rigor; it demonstrates you’re serious about the story. It also protects your publication from publishing unsubstantiated claims.
The Case of the Misquoted AI Ethicist
Let me share a concrete case study from my time overseeing a technology news desk. In early 2025, we were covering the rapid advancements in AI ethics and governance. A new AI model, “CognitoNet 3.0” by Veridian Labs, had just been released, promising unprecedented interpretability, but also raising concerns about its potential for misuse in surveillance. Our reporter, let’s call her Sarah, was tasked with interviewing Dr. Anya Sharma, a renowned AI ethicist at Georgia Tech.
Sarah’s initial draft of the article was problematic. Dr. Sharma was quoted as saying, “CognitoNet 3.0 is inherently dangerous and should be banned.” This was a bold, headline-grabbing statement. However, when I reviewed the interview transcript and audio, the full context revealed something different. Dr. Sharma had actually said, “While CognitoNet 3.0 offers promising interpretability features, its application without robust ethical oversight and regulatory frameworks could render it inherently dangerous, potentially leading to calls for its ban if misused extensively.”
The reporter had cherry-picked a phrase and stripped it of its crucial caveats. This wasn’t malicious, but a classic mistake born from a desire for a punchy quote and a failure to capture the nuance. My intervention involved:
- Re-listening to the full audio: We identified the exact segment and the surrounding context.
- Reaching out to Dr. Sharma: I personally called Dr. Sharma, apologized for the misrepresentation, and read her the original quote, asking for her preferred phrasing for accuracy. She appreciated the diligence.
- Rewriting the quote: The final quote in the article reflected her nuanced perspective, emphasizing the “if misused extensively” and the need for “robust ethical oversight.”
- Internal training: We used this incident as a training opportunity, focusing on active listening, contextual quoting, and the importance of full transcription review.
The outcome? The article still conveyed the seriousness of the ethical concerns, but it did so with accuracy and integrity. Dr. Sharma became a trusted source for us, knowing we prioritized faithful representation. Sarah learned a critical lesson about the power of context and the dangers of selective quoting. This process, though time-consuming, cemented our reputation for journalistic integrity. For more on the role of AI in news, consider our discussion on how AI transforms news gathering.
Overlooking Practicalities and Professionalism
Beyond the intellectual rigor, the practical aspects of an interview are equally critical. Neglecting these details can derail even the most well-researched conversation. I’m talking about things like technical setup, time management, and clear communication of expectations.
First, always confirm the interview format and ensure your technical setup is flawless. If it’s a video call, test your microphone and camera beforehand. If it’s a phone call, ensure you’re in a quiet environment with good reception. Nothing screams unprofessionalism louder than a reporter struggling with audio issues for the first five minutes of a scheduled interview. I’ve been on calls where the reporter’s internet connection was so unstable, the expert simply couldn’t communicate effectively. This is preventable.
Second, be acutely aware of the expert’s time. They are often busy professionals with packed schedules. Stick to the agreed-upon duration. If you’ve scheduled 30 minutes, don’t try to stretch it to 45 without prior consent. Have your questions prioritized so you can cover the most critical points even if time runs short. Always ask at the end, “Is there anything else you think our audience should know that we haven’t covered?” This often yields unexpected insights and shows respect for their expertise.
Finally, clarify attribution and any off-the-record stipulations upfront. This is non-negotiable. Before you even hit record, explicitly state, “This interview is on the record unless otherwise specified. If you wish to go off the record at any point, please state it clearly before speaking.” This prevents misunderstandings and builds trust. A significant portion of my work involves managing these expectations, and I’ve found that being transparent from the outset establishes a professional tone that benefits everyone involved. It’s also wise to offer to send them the relevant quotes for fact-checking before publication – not for approval of content, but for factual accuracy. This small gesture can prevent major headaches later on. This also contributes to solving the broader credibility crisis in news.
Avoiding these common mistakes isn’t just about crafting a better story; it’s about upholding the integrity of news, fostering trust with sources, and ultimately, delivering invaluable information to your audience. The path to impactful journalism is paved with meticulous preparation, insightful questioning, and unwavering professionalism.
How can I ensure my questions aren’t leading?
To avoid leading questions, focus on neutral phrasing that doesn’t suggest a preferred answer. Start questions with “how,” “why,” or “what specific factors” to encourage open-ended responses. For example, instead of “Don’t you agree this policy is flawed?”, ask “What are the potential strengths and weaknesses of this policy?”
What is the best way to handle an expert using technical jargon?
When an expert uses jargon, politely interrupt and ask them to explain the term in simpler language for your audience. You can say, “That’s a key concept; could you break down ‘X’ for our readers who might not be experts in this field?” This shows you’re thinking about clarity for your audience.
Should I send questions to an expert in advance?
Generally, sending a brief outline of the topics you’d like to cover is a good practice as it allows the expert to gather their thoughts and any relevant data. However, avoid sending a rigid list of exact questions, as this can stifle spontaneity and lead to pre-rehearsed answers. Focus on themes rather than precise wording.
How do I verify an expert’s credentials and ensure they are truly authoritative on the specific topic?
Before the interview, thoroughly research the expert’s academic background, publications, professional affiliations, and any recent media appearances. Look for their specific area of specialization. If you’re interviewing about climate change, ensure they are a climate scientist, not just an environmental activist. Cross-reference their claims with other reputable sources or academic databases.
What’s the difference between “off the record” and “on background”?
“Off the record” means the information shared cannot be published or attributed to the source in any way. It’s solely for the reporter’s understanding. “On background” means the information can be published, but the source cannot be named directly; they might be referred to as “a source familiar with the matter” or “a senior official.” Always clarify these terms with the expert before proceeding.
