In the high-stakes world of news, securing impactful interviews with experts can make or break a story. Yet, many journalists, even seasoned ones, routinely stumble, undermining the very insights they seek to extract. This isn’t just about awkward silences; it’s about missed opportunities, compromised credibility, and ultimately, a disservice to the audience. So, what common missteps are still plaguing newsrooms, and how can we collectively raise our game?
Key Takeaways
- Thoroughly research your expert and their specific field of knowledge to avoid superficial or misdirected questions.
- Prepare a clear interview objective and a structured question list, but remain flexible enough to follow up on unexpected insights.
- Actively listen to the expert’s responses rather than focusing solely on delivering your next pre-planned question.
- Challenge vague or evasive answers respectfully by asking for specific examples, data, or clarification.
- Always fact-check any statistics or claims made by an expert, even those from highly reputable sources, before publication.
ANALYSIS
The Peril of Superficial Preparation: More Than Just a Google Search
I’ve seen it countless times: a reporter gets a five-minute slot with a Nobel laureate or a leading economist, and their questions are so generic they could have been pulled from a high school textbook. This isn’t just embarrassing; it’s a profound waste of everyone’s time. The first, and arguably most critical, mistake is a lack of deep, targeted preparation. It’s not enough to know an expert’s name and their general field. You need to understand their specific contributions, their published works, their nuanced positions within their domain.
We recently had a situation at our agency where a junior reporter was assigned to interview Dr. Anya Sharma, a renowned cybersecurity expert from Georgia Tech’s School of Cybersecurity and Privacy (cyber.gatech.edu), regarding a new state-level data breach notification law. The reporter, bless her heart, asked about the “general state of cyber threats.” Dr. Sharma, politely but firmly, redirected her to her specific research on AI-driven attack vectors and the legal implications for Georgia businesses. The interview, predictably, went nowhere fast. My professional assessment? This isn’t about being an expert yourself, but about demonstrating you’ve done your homework. Read their recent papers, follow their social media, understand their specific niche. Without this, you’re not interviewing an expert; you’re just having a conversation with someone who happens to be knowledgeable.
According to a 2024 survey by the Pew Research Center (www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2024/03/12/trust-in-news-media-remains-low-amidst-political-polarization/), public trust in news media continues to hover at historically low levels, with a significant portion of the decline attributed to perceived superficiality and lack of in-depth reporting. When we fail to engage experts effectively, we contribute directly to this erosion of trust. We owe it to our audience to extract real insight, not just soundbites. For more on this, consider how Pew Research demands depth in 2026 journalism.
“What it also left was an impression of confusion and uncertainty. It was more will-they-won't-they.”
The Illusion of Control: Over-Scripting vs. Active Listening
Another common pitfall is the relentless pursuit of a pre-scripted agenda, often at the expense of genuine dialogue. Journalists, under pressure to hit specific angles or word counts, sometimes treat interviews less like a conversation and more like a checklist. They’ll fire off question after question, barely pausing for a breath, let alone truly listening to the nuances of the expert’s response. This isn’t just rude; it’s analytically bankrupt.
I remember an interview I conducted years ago with a former federal prosecutor, Ms. Eleanor Vance, now a partner at a prominent Atlanta law firm, regarding the intricacies of RICO statutes in a high-profile case being heard in the Fulton County Superior Court. My initial questions were prepared, yes, but when she mentioned a specific, obscure precedent from the 1980s that dramatically altered the interpretation of “enterprise,” I immediately pivoted. Had I stuck to my script, I would have missed a crucial piece of legal context that became the backbone of my story. Flexibility and active listening are paramount. Your expert might offer a perspective you hadn’t considered, or drop a piece of information that completely reframes your understanding. Clinging too tightly to your prepared questions means you’ll miss these gold nuggets.
Indeed, a 2023 study on journalistic practices published by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk) highlighted that journalists who demonstrated higher levels of adaptive questioning and follow-up during interviews consistently produced more authoritative and cited work. The data doesn’t lie: listen more, talk less, and be ready to adapt. This approach is key to news analysis and depth in 2026.
The Fear of Challenging: When Politeness Becomes Professional Negligence
Experts, despite their vast knowledge, are not infallible. They can be biased, they can be vague, and sometimes, they can even be wrong. A significant mistake I observe is the reluctance of journalists to respectfully challenge an expert’s assertions. This isn’t about being confrontational for confrontation’s sake; it’s about seeking clarity, evidence, and precision. When an expert offers a sweeping generalization or a statistic without context, it’s our job to push back.
“Can you provide a specific example of that?” “What data supports that claim?” “How does that compare to the previous quarter’s numbers?” These aren’t aggressive questions; they are fundamental journalistic inquiries. I once interviewed a local urban planning consultant about traffic congestion solutions near the I-285/GA-400 interchange. He confidently stated that “autonomous vehicles would solve 80% of traffic problems by 2030.” I pressed him. “Which specific studies are you referencing? What assumptions are those models based on? What about infrastructure limitations in existing urban cores like Buckhead?” He stammered a bit, then admitted the “80%” was more of an aspirational figure from a white paper he’d skimmed. That clarification was vital for my audience. Don’t be afraid to ask for evidence and specifics. Your audience deserves more than an expert’s unverified pronouncements.
This is where the concept of “trust but verify” truly applies. Even the most respected figures can make off-the-cuff remarks that, if published without scrutiny, can mislead. My professional assessment is that failing to challenge isn’t politeness; it’s professional negligence. It’s allowing unsubstantiated claims to masquerade as fact. We are not stenographers; we are critical conduits of information. This is especially important for media credibility in 2026.
The Post-Interview Pitfall: Neglecting Verification and Contextualization
The interview doesn’t end when the recording stops. Many journalists make the mistake of taking expert testimony at face value, transcribing it, and inserting it directly into their copy without further scrutiny. This is a dangerous practice. Every claim, every statistic, every historical reference made by an expert—no matter how credentialed—must be independently verified. This is especially true when dealing with complex or controversial subjects.
For example, if a medical expert discusses a specific drug trial, I’m going to cross-reference that trial’s findings with official reports from the National Institutes of Health (www.nih.gov) or peer-reviewed journals. If an economist cites a GDP growth figure, I’m checking it against data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov). This meticulous verification process ensures accuracy and adds a layer of authority to your reporting. Beyond verification, there’s contextualization. An expert’s opinion, while valuable, is still one perspective. How does it compare to other leading opinions? What are the counter-arguments? Presenting an expert’s view in isolation, without broader context, can create a skewed narrative.
My advice is firm: never publish an expert’s claim without attempting to verify it through at least one additional, reputable source. This isn’t about distrusting the expert; it’s about upholding the highest standards of journalistic integrity. We are the final gatekeepers of information, and that responsibility extends beyond the interview itself. It’s what separates credible news from mere regurgitation.
In 2025, our team at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution tackled a complex series on the future of electric vehicle manufacturing in Georgia, particularly around the new Rivian plant east of Atlanta. We interviewed numerous experts: economists, environmental scientists, logistics specialists, and policy makers. One economist, highly respected, provided projections for job creation that seemed exceptionally optimistic. Instead of just running with it, we cross-referenced his methodology with reports from the Georgia Department of Labor (dol.georgia.gov) and independent economic impact studies from regional universities. We found his model relied on a specific, high-growth scenario that wasn’t universally agreed upon. Our final article accurately represented his optimistic view but also presented the more conservative projections from other sources, giving our readers a much more balanced and accurate picture. This case study underscores the absolute necessity of post-interview verification and contextualization. It wasn’t about discrediting the expert, but about providing comprehensive, evidenced-based reporting. The outcome? A more nuanced story, better informed readers, and heightened credibility for our publication. This kind of diligent data-driven reporting provides a strategic edge.
Navigating interviews with experts demands more than just asking questions; it requires rigorous preparation, agile listening, critical questioning, and diligent post-interview verification. By consciously avoiding these common mistakes, journalists can elevate their reporting, extract deeper insights, and ultimately deliver more authoritative and trustworthy news to their audiences.
How much research should I do before an interview?
You should conduct enough research to understand the expert’s specific area of specialization, their most recent work or publications, and any nuanced positions they hold within their field. This goes beyond general knowledge; aim to be conversant in their specific contributions. I usually spend at least 2-3 hours for a 30-minute interview with a new expert, focusing on their last 2-3 years of work.
Is it okay to interrupt an expert during an interview?
While generally discouraged, strategic interruptions are sometimes necessary. If an expert is rambling, evading a direct question, or veering significantly off-topic, a polite but firm interruption to redirect them back to the core subject or to ask for clarification is acceptable and often necessary to maintain focus and extract useful information. Just ensure it’s purposeful, not rude.
What if an expert gives a “no comment” or avoids a question?
If an expert gives a “no comment” or avoids a question, you should first try to rephrase the question or ask it from a different angle. If they still refuse to answer, it’s important to acknowledge their refusal in your reporting. You might state, “When asked about [specific topic], Dr. [Expert Name] declined to comment” or “Dr. [Expert Name] did not directly address the question regarding [specific issue].”
Should I share my questions with the expert beforehand?
Providing a general outline or key themes can be helpful for the expert to prepare, but sharing your exact, detailed questions can sometimes lead to overly rehearsed answers or a lack of spontaneity. My preference is to give them a thematic overview, saying something like, “We’ll be discussing the economic impact of the new infrastructure bill on Atlanta’s small businesses, with a focus on specific sectors like construction and logistics.”
How do I verify complex data or scientific claims from an expert?
To verify complex data or scientific claims, always seek out primary sources such as official government reports (e.g., CDC, NOAA, BEA), peer-reviewed academic journals, or reputable research institutions (e.g., university studies, established think tanks). Cross-reference the information with multiple authoritative sources to ensure accuracy and consensus within the scientific or academic community. Don’t rely on secondary interpretations.
