Opinion: Conducting effective interviews with experts for news stories is a craft, not a casual conversation. Many journalists, even seasoned ones, routinely make avoidable errors that undermine the credibility, depth, and impact of their reporting. My firm belief, forged over two decades in the newsroom, is that a failure to meticulously prepare, actively listen, and strategically follow up transforms a potential journalistic triumph into a missed opportunity, leaving audiences with superficial insights and a thirst for real understanding.
Key Takeaways
- Before any expert interview, dedicate at least 90 minutes to researching the expert’s specific publications, past statements, and professional affiliations to tailor questions effectively.
- Implement the “5-Why” technique during interviews to consistently probe beyond initial answers, aiming for deeper causal explanations or nuanced perspectives.
- Always record interviews (with consent) and transcribe key sections immediately afterward to capture precise quotes and avoid misinterpretation.
- For sensitive topics, pre-draft 3-5 alternative angles or follow-up questions to pivot if the initial line of inquiry proves unproductive or the expert is evasive.
- Conclude every expert interview by asking, “What critical question haven’t I asked you yet?” to uncover overlooked areas or new insights.
The Fatal Flaw of Insufficient Preparation
The most egregious error I see reporters make when conducting interviews with experts is walking in unprepared. This isn’t just about knowing the basic facts of your story; it’s about knowing your expert better than they expect you to. We’re in 2026, information is abundant, yet I still witness journalists fumbling through conversations, asking questions that are clearly answered in the expert’s most recent white paper or a prominent media appearance from last month. It’s frankly insulting to the expert and a colossal waste of precious interview time.
Consider Dr. Evelyn Hayes, a leading epidemiologist at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, specializing in infectious disease modeling. If you’re interviewing her about the latest influenza variant, and you haven’t read her seminal paper from 2024 on vaccine efficacy in rapidly mutating viruses, you’re already behind. You’ll ask generic questions, she’ll give generic answers, and your story will lack the specific, authoritative detail that only she can provide. I had a client last year, a promising investigative reporter, who was assigned a piece on urban planning and gentrification in Atlanta’s West End. He went into an interview with a Georgia Tech urban policy professor having only skimmed a Wikipedia page. The professor quickly realized this, became visibly disengaged, and offered nothing beyond platitudes. The resulting article was bland, easily forgettable, and failed to move the needle. The reporter missed a golden opportunity to get truly incisive analysis on the impact of the BeltLine’s expansion on affordable housing in neighborhoods like Adair Park and Oakland City, simply because he hadn’t done his homework on the professor’s specific research on those very areas.
My approach, which I instill in every journalist I mentor, involves at least 90 minutes of dedicated research on the expert themselves. Not just the topic, but the expert’s specific niche within that topic, their recent publications, their past interviews, and even their professional affiliations. Are they part of a think tank? Do they advise a particular government body? Understanding their perspective—their intellectual framework—allows you to craft questions that challenge them, that delve into their unique contributions, and that ultimately extract insights no one else has reported yet. This isn’t about trying to catch them out; it’s about demonstrating respect for their expertise and maximizing the value of their time, and yours.
The Illusion of Listening: Asking Without Hearing
Another common pitfall in interviews with experts is the failure to truly listen. Many journalists are so focused on getting through their pre-written list of questions that they miss crucial nuances, subtle qualifications, or even entirely new avenues of inquiry that the expert volunteers. They’re asking, but they’re not hearing. This isn’t just about being polite; it’s about journalistic rigor. An expert might offer a caveat, a specific data point, or a contrasting viewpoint that, if followed up on, could become the most compelling part of your story. But if you’re already mentally preparing your next question, that vital piece of information floats right past you, unexamined.
I advocate for a technique I call “relentless curiosity,” which essentially means adopting the “5-Why” approach from quality management. When an expert states a fact or an opinion, don’t just accept it. Ask “Why?” Then, when they answer, ask “Why is that the case?” again. Repeat this, probing deeper into causes, implications, and underlying assumptions. For example, if a financial analyst tells you, “The market is reacting negatively to the Fed’s latest announcement,” don’t just move on. Ask: “Why is that a negative reaction specifically? What mechanisms are at play?” Then: “Why are those mechanisms impacting this sector more than others?” This relentless probing, done respectfully, forces the expert to articulate their thinking more clearly, providing you with richer, more granular information. It’s the difference between a superficial quote and a profound insight. We ran into this exact issue at my previous firm when covering the semiconductor industry. A junior reporter interviewed an executive from Intel who mentioned “supply chain resilience” in passing. The reporter moved on. Had he paused, asked “Why is resilience so critical now for Intel?” and pressed further, he would have uncovered a fascinating story about the shift from just-in-time to just-in-case inventory strategies, a significant but underreported trend in 2026. Instead, the story was just another report on quarterly earnings.
It’s also why I insist on recording every interview (with informed consent, of course). The human memory is fallible, especially when juggling active listening, note-taking, and formulating follow-up questions. A recording allows you to revisit the conversation, pick up on those subtle inflections, and ensure you’ve accurately captured every quote. Transcribing key sections immediately after the interview, even if just for five minutes, cements the information and prevents misinterpretation, which is a far too common and damaging mistake.
The Sin of Superficial Follow-Up
The final, and perhaps most frustrating, common mistake is the lack of strategic follow-up. Many journalists treat an interview as a one-and-done event. They get their quotes, write their story, and move on. This is a profound disservice to the complexity of the news and the depth of an expert’s knowledge. True journalistic excellence often lies in the iterative process—the follow-up question that arises after you’ve had time to synthesize the initial information, cross-reference it with other sources, or identify gaps in your understanding.
Consider the scenario where an expert provides a statistic that seems to contradict another source, or offers a perspective that opens up an entirely new line of inquiry you hadn’t considered during the initial interview. A diligent journalist doesn’t ignore this; they reach back out. This isn’t about badgering the expert; it’s about demonstrating your commitment to accuracy and thoroughness. A brief email, a quick phone call, or even a text message with a pointed, well-formulated follow-up question can transform a good story into a great one.
For instance, let’s take a hypothetical case study involving a story on the impact of rising interest rates on small businesses in Georgia. I was editing a piece last spring where the reporter interviewed Dr. Anya Sharma, an economist from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Dr. Sharma noted that while larger businesses had access to hedging strategies, smaller enterprises, especially those in the retail sector along Peachtree Street in Buckhead, were feeling the pinch more acutely. The reporter initially didn’t press on the “why.” After reviewing the interview, I suggested he follow up. He sent a concise email asking, “Dr. Sharma, regarding your point on small retail businesses, could you elaborate on specific mechanisms, beyond general interest rates, that disproportionately affect them? Are we seeing, for example, a tighter lending environment from regional banks like Truist or Synovus, or is it more about consumer discretionary spending shifts?” Her response was invaluable. She detailed how regional banks, facing their own liquidity pressures, were tightening credit lines for small businesses, and how this was exacerbated by a subtle but significant shift in consumer spending habits away from local boutiques towards larger online retailers. This additional layer of detail, obtained through a simple follow-up, provided the specific, local color and economic insight that elevated the story from a generic economic report to a compelling narrative about the real struggles of Atlanta’s small business community. Without that follow-up, the story would have been incomplete, lacking the granular data points that make news truly resonate.
Some might argue that experts are busy and shouldn’t be bothered with multiple contacts. My counter to this is simple: a well-prepared, thoughtful follow-up demonstrates your professionalism and your dedication to accurate reporting. Most experts appreciate this. They want their knowledge to be conveyed accurately and completely. A brief, targeted follow-up shows you value their input, not just their soundbites. It’s about building a relationship, not just extracting information. And always, always, end your initial interview by asking, “What critical question haven’t I asked you yet?” You’d be amazed at the gold nuggets you uncover.
To truly master the art of interviews with experts, journalists must abandon the passive, checklist approach. Embrace rigorous preparation, cultivate active and strategic listening, and commit to thorough, intelligent follow-up. Your audience deserves more than superficial summaries; they deserve deep, authoritative insights that only come from truly engaging with the brightest minds in their fields. Elevate your craft, and in doing so, elevate the quality of public discourse.
How much research is truly necessary before an expert interview?
A minimum of 90 minutes of dedicated research on the expert’s specific publications, past media appearances, and professional affiliations is essential. This allows you to tailor questions that demonstrate your understanding of their unique contributions and avoid asking questions readily answered elsewhere.
What is the “5-Why” technique and how does it apply to interviews?
The “5-Why” technique involves asking “Why?” repeatedly (typically five times) to delve deeper into a statement or answer, uncovering underlying causes, assumptions, or implications. In interviews, it helps move beyond surface-level responses to extract more profound insights and specific details from experts.
Should I always record interviews? What about consent?
Yes, always record interviews to ensure accuracy and capture nuances that might be missed during note-taking. Crucially, always obtain clear, informed consent from the expert before beginning any recording, verbally and preferably in writing for sensitive topics.
How can I effectively follow up with a busy expert without being a nuisance?
Keep follow-up concise, specific, and respectful of their time. Frame your questions around synthesizing new information or clarifying a point from the original discussion. A brief, well-formulated email or text message is often more effective than an unscheduled call.
What is the single most important question to ask at the end of an expert interview?
Always conclude by asking, “What critical question haven’t I asked you yet?” This often prompts the expert to share overlooked but vital information, alternative perspectives, or new angles you hadn’t considered, enriching your reporting immensely.
