Conducting effective interviews with experts for news stories is an art form, demanding meticulous preparation and a sharp ear. The insights gleaned from these conversations can elevate a good story to a groundbreaking report, but missteps can lead to missed opportunities, misrepresentations, or even reputational damage. Avoiding common pitfalls ensures your reporting is not just accurate, but truly impactful, providing the public with the valuable information they need. So, what separates a compelling expert interview from a forgettable one?
Key Takeaways
- Always conduct thorough pre-interview research on both the expert and the subject matter, allocating at least 2 hours for complex topics to formulate precise questions.
- Never skip the pre-interview briefing; clearly communicate your story’s angle and scope to the expert, preventing off-topic discussions and ensuring relevant soundbites.
- Actively listen and adapt your interview questions in real-time based on the expert’s responses, rather than rigidly adhering to a pre-written script, to uncover deeper insights.
- Establish trust by demonstrating respect for the expert’s time and knowledge, confirming their preferred contact method and availability before scheduling.
- Always record interviews with explicit consent, and consider using transcription services like Otter.ai for accurate recall, especially for complex technical discussions.
Underestimating the Power of Preparation
One of the most egregious errors I see, even from seasoned journalists, is walking into an interviews with experts session underprepared. It’s not just about knowing your story; it’s about knowing their story, their field, and their specific contributions. When you haven’t done your homework, it shows. You ask basic questions they’ve answered a thousand times, you miss opportunities to dig deeper, and frankly, you disrespect their time. This isn’t just a matter of courtesy; it impacts the quality of the information you receive.
I recall a situation at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution where a new reporter was assigned to interview a leading epidemiologist from Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health about a novel pathogen. The reporter, bright but rushed, hadn’t thoroughly reviewed the epidemiologist’s recent publications or even their specific area of focus within infectious diseases. The interview quickly devolved into a series of general questions that could have been answered by a quick Wikipedia search. The expert, visibly frustrated, offered only high-level responses, and the resulting article lacked the incisive analysis we’d hoped for. We had to send another, more prepared reporter to conduct a follow-up, which not only wasted resources but also strained our relationship with that particular expert. The lesson was stark: preparation isn’t optional; it’s foundational.
My rule of thumb? For every hour you expect to interview an expert, dedicate at least two hours to research. This includes reviewing their recent publications, checking their social media for recent discussions or presentations, and understanding the nuances of the topic itself. If you’re interviewing an economist about inflation, don’t just know what inflation is; understand the current Fed policy, the latest CPI data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the prevailing theories on its causes. This depth allows you to formulate intelligent follow-up questions, challenge assumptions respectfully, and ultimately extract truly insightful news material.
Failing to Set Clear Expectations and Objectives
Another major pitfall is the failure to properly brief your expert. They are busy people, often juggling multiple demands, and they are doing you a favor by granting an interview. Don’t assume they intuitively understand your story’s angle, your deadline, or your specific needs. This leads to rambling interviews, off-topic discussions, and ultimately, wasted time for everyone involved. I’ve seen countless interviews where the expert spent 15 minutes discussing a tangent completely unrelated to the story because the reporter hadn’t clearly articulated the focus upfront. This isn’t just inefficient; it can lead to frustration and a reluctance to engage with your organization in the future.
Before any interview, I send a concise email or make a brief call outlining:
- The story’s central theme: “We’re exploring the impact of Georgia’s new zoning laws on affordable housing in Fulton County, specifically how it affects areas like Summerhill.”
- The specific questions or areas of expertise I hope to tap into: “We’re particularly interested in your perspective on the economic implications for developers and potential residents, and any data you might have on similar legislation in other states.”
- The desired outcome: “We’re looking for a compelling quote or two that explains the long-term effects for our morning news segment.”
- Logistics: “The interview will be approximately 20 minutes, either via phone or video conference, and we’re hoping to publish by Friday.”
This proactive communication establishes a professional tone and ensures both parties are aligned. It also gives the expert time to gather any data or thoughts they might want to share, making the interview far more productive. Transparency here is your ally.
Ignoring the Human Element: Building Rapport and Trust
It’s easy to view an expert as merely a source of information, a walking encyclopedia. This is a profound mistake. Experts are people, with their own passions, perspectives, and even anxieties about how their words will be used. Neglecting the human element can lead to stilted conversations, guarded responses, and a lack of genuine insight. Building rapport isn’t about being their friend; it’s about establishing a professional relationship built on respect and trust. I always start with a brief, non-work-related opener. “How’s the traffic on I-75 this morning?” or “I saw your recent piece in the New York Times; fascinating work.” This small gesture acknowledges them as a person before you dive into the hard-hitting questions.
Active Listening and Adaptability
Another critical aspect of the human element is active listening. Many reporters, especially early in their careers, are so focused on getting through their list of questions that they fail to truly hear what the expert is saying. This often means missing crucial follow-up opportunities or failing to pick up on subtle cues. When an expert says something intriguing but slightly tangential, don’t just move on to your next pre-written question. Pause. Ask, “Could you elaborate on that point? That’s really interesting.” This adaptability shows you’re engaged and genuinely interested in their perspective, not just ticking boxes.
I distinctly remember interviewing a cybersecurity expert from the Georgia Tech Research Institute about a new phishing scam targeting state employees. My initial questions were fairly standard. However, he mentioned, almost in passing, “The most surprising element isn’t the technical sophistication, but the social engineering aspect – it exploits a very specific trust vulnerability within the state’s procurement system.” Instead of moving on to my next question about firewalls, I stopped and asked him to unpack that. He then spent ten minutes detailing how the attackers had meticulously researched the internal communication patterns of the Department of Administrative Services, creating highly believable emails that mimicked official requests. This pivot, driven by active listening, turned a generic cybersecurity story into a compelling narrative about human psychology and organizational vulnerabilities – far more engaging news. The initial script would have never gotten us there.
Moreover, always confirm how they prefer to be quoted. Some experts are comfortable with direct quotes, others prefer to be paraphrased. Some might want to review quotes for accuracy (though as journalists, we retain final editorial control, of course). Being upfront about this demonstrates respect for their professional reputation. My go-to line is: “Just to confirm, are you comfortable with direct quotes, or would you prefer I paraphrase where possible?” This simple question builds immense goodwill.
Making Technical Jargon a Barrier, Not a Bridge
Experts often speak in the language of their field, which can be dense with jargon, acronyms, and highly specialized concepts. Your job as a journalist is not just to record these words, but to translate them for a general audience. A common mistake is to let technical terms fly by without clarification, assuming the audience will understand, or worse, assuming you understand when you don’t. This results in articles that are inaccessible, confusing, and ultimately, unhelpful to the public.
My advice is firm: never be afraid to ask for clarification, no matter how basic it seems. If an expert mentions “quantum entanglement” or “stochastic modeling,” and you’re not 100% clear on its layman’s meaning, stop them. “For our readers, could you explain ‘stochastic modeling’ in simpler terms? Perhaps an analogy?” Most experts are delighted to explain their work to a broader audience, as it often helps them refine their own understanding and reach. If they seem impatient, gently remind them of your audience: “My goal is to make this understandable for someone who might not have a science degree.”
Case Study: Decoding Biotech Regulations for Local News
A few years ago, we were covering a story for WSB-TV about a new biotech startup in Technology Square developing CRISPR-based therapies. The CEO, brilliant but deeply steeped in molecular biology, was using terms like “homologous recombination,” “guide RNA,” and “off-target effects” liberally. Our initial interview footage was a jumble of scientific terms that would mean nothing to the average viewer. I recognized the problem immediately. We went back for a follow-up, and this time, I had a specific strategy.
I started by saying, “Dr. Chen, your work is incredibly important, but our audience in Midtown Atlanta might not have a background in genetics. Could you help me translate some of these concepts into terms that resonate with them?” I then explicitly asked for analogies. For “CRISPR,” she compared it to a “genetic spell-checker.” For “off-target effects,” she explained it was like “a spell-checker accidentally changing a word it wasn’t supposed to.” This approach transformed the interview. We were able to produce a segment that not only informed but also engaged our viewers, explaining complex science in an accessible way. The segment reached over 300,000 viewers, and we received overwhelmingly positive feedback for its clarity, something that would have been impossible if we hadn’t actively worked to bridge the jargon gap.
Neglecting Follow-Up and Fact-Checking
The interview doesn’t end when you hang up the phone or leave the office. A common mistake, particularly under tight deadlines, is to rush directly into writing without proper follow-up or rigorous fact-checking. Even the most reputable experts can misremember a statistic or misspeak a detail. Your credibility, and that of your news organization, rests on the accuracy of your reporting.
Always send a brief thank-you email. This is also an opportune moment to confirm any specific data points, spellings of names or organizations, or clarify any ambiguous statements. “Just to confirm, you mentioned that the average cost increase was 15% for residential permits in Gwinnett County; is that correct?” This simple step can prevent significant errors. If an expert provided a document or a link to a study during the interview, make sure to review it carefully. Don’t just take their word for it; verify the source, the methodology, and the conclusions. According to a Pew Research Center report, public trust in news organizations is directly tied to perceived accuracy and objectivity. Sloppy fact-checking erodes that trust.
Finally, consider the larger context. Does the expert’s opinion align with other voices in the field? Are there counter-arguments or alternative perspectives that should be included for balance? A single expert’s view, no matter how authoritative, rarely tells the whole story. This is where your broader research comes into play, ensuring you present a comprehensive and fair picture to your audience. True journalistic integrity demands this multi-faceted approach.
Conclusion
Mastering interviews with experts transforms your news reporting from merely informative to truly insightful. By prioritizing preparation, clear communication, human connection, translation of jargon, and diligent follow-up, you won’t just avoid common mistakes; you’ll consistently deliver compelling, authoritative stories that resonate with your audience and uphold the highest standards of journalism.
How much research is truly necessary before an expert interview?
My benchmark is at least two hours of dedicated research for every one hour of interview time, especially for complex topics or new experts. This includes reviewing their recent publications, institutional affiliations, and any relevant data they’ve cited previously.
What’s the best way to handle an expert who is overly technical or uses too much jargon?
Politely interrupt and ask for clarification, framing it for your audience. Say, “For our readers who might not be familiar with [term], could you explain that in simpler terms, perhaps with an analogy?” Most experts appreciate the opportunity to make their work accessible.
Should I send my questions to the expert in advance?
I advocate for sending a concise overview of your story’s angle and the general topics you wish to cover, but not a full list of specific questions. This allows the expert to prepare without limiting your ability to adapt and ask spontaneous follow-up questions during the interview.
What if an expert goes off-topic during the interview?
Gently guide them back. You can say, “That’s a fascinating point, Dr. Smith, but I want to ensure we cover [original topic] before our time is up.” Or, “Let’s bring it back to [specific aspect of your story].” Be firm but polite, respecting their time and yours.
Is it acceptable to record all interviews?
Absolutely, but always with explicit consent. Inform the expert at the beginning of the interview that you’ll be recording for accuracy. Many journalists use digital recorders or software like Zoom‘s built-in recording feature for video calls. Recording is essential for accurate quotes and detailed transcription, preventing misrepresentation.
