ANALYSIS
In the high-stakes world of news, conducting effective interviews with experts is not merely a skill but an art form critical to delivering accurate and impactful journalism. Yet, I’ve seen far too many reporters, even seasoned veterans, stumble through conversations that should have been goldmines of insight, leaving both themselves and their audience short-changed. The difference between a compelling, authoritative piece and a forgettable one often hinges on avoiding common missteps during these interactions, but what exactly are these pitfalls?
Key Takeaways
- Thoroughly research your expert’s specific domain and their published work to formulate precise, informed questions.
- Prioritize listening over talking during an interview, allowing the expert to fully elaborate and reveal unexpected insights.
- Always prepare a structured interview outline but remain flexible enough to pursue unanticipated but relevant tangents.
- Verify complex technical or statistical information provided by experts with at least one independent source before publication.
- Establish clear ground rules for attribution and off-the-record discussions before the interview officially begins.
The Peril of Under-Preparation: A Recipe for Superficiality
The most egregious error I encounter is insufficient preparation. It’s not enough to know your topic generally; you must know your expert specifically. I once shadowed a junior reporter who, despite covering a major municipal bond default in Fulton County, approached a leading financial analyst from Emory University’s Goizueta Business School with questions that could have been answered by a quick search on Investopedia. The analyst, clearly frustrated, gave generic responses, and the interview yielded little beyond basic definitions. That’s a waste of everyone’s time.
True preparation means diving deep into the expert’s published papers, recent talks, and even their social media commentary. What are their specific research interests? What controversies have they engaged with? What unique perspective do they bring to the table? For instance, when interviewing Dr. Evelyn Reed, a renowned epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, about the latest influenza strain, I wouldn’t just ask about transmission rates. I’d ask about her specific work on viral mutation patterns, referencing her 2024 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, and probe how those findings might influence public health messaging in the upcoming season. This level of specificity not only impresses the expert but also ensures you extract truly novel insights. Without it, you’re just skimming the surface, and your audience deserves more.
Dominating the Conversation: The Listener’s Dilemma
Another common mistake is talking too much. Reporters, eager to demonstrate their knowledge or guide the conversation, often interrupt or rephrase questions excessively. An interview is not a debate or a platform for the reporter’s opinions; it’s an opportunity for the expert to educate. My rule of thumb is the 80/20 principle: the expert should be speaking 80% of the time, the reporter 20%. This requires discipline, especially when you’re passionate about the subject.
I remember a particularly challenging interview with a cybersecurity expert regarding a sophisticated ransomware attack that crippled several state agencies, including the Georgia Department of Revenue. The reporter kept interjecting with hypothetical scenarios and personal observations about network security. The expert, clearly trying to explain the technical nuances of the attack vector, became visibly flustered. The resulting soundbites were disjointed, lacking the clarity and authority we needed. Had the reporter simply posed concise, open-ended questions and then listened intently, we would have uncovered far more about the attack’s origins and potential preventative measures. Listening isn’t passive; it’s an active, strategic choice that yields richer information.
Failing to Adapt: The Rigidity Trap
While preparation is paramount, slavish adherence to a pre-written script can be equally detrimental. The best interviews are dynamic, allowing for spontaneous follow-up questions that emerge from the expert’s responses. I advocate for a structured outline with key questions but always leave room for improvisation. Think of it as a roadmap, not a railway track.
Consider the case of a local investigative piece we ran last year on zoning variances in the Grant Park neighborhood of Atlanta. We were interviewing a city planner. Our initial questions focused on the procedural aspects. However, when the planner mentioned, almost in passing, a new, obscure state legislative amendment (O.C.G.A. Section 36-66-5.1) that significantly altered local council’s discretionary powers, the reporter immediately recognized its importance. They abandoned their next three planned questions and dove into the implications of this amendment, uncovering a major angle we hadn’t anticipated. This flexibility transformed a routine interview into a groundbreaking one. A reporter who rigidly sticks to their script misses these critical, often unexpected, opportunities for deeper insight. You must be prepared to pivot when an expert drops a bombshell or introduces a genuinely novel concept.
Overlooking Verification: Trust, But Double-Check
Experts are human; they make mistakes, misremember details, or sometimes even present information with a slight bias towards their own research or institution. Relying solely on an expert’s word, especially for complex technical data, statistics, or legal interpretations, is a professional dereliction of duty. We, as journalists, are the ultimate fact-checkers.
A few years ago, we covered the economic impact of a new manufacturing plant opening near Braselton, Georgia. A local economist provided a projected job creation number that seemed unusually high. While he was an expert, we didn’t just print it. We cross-referenced his figures with reports from the Georgia Department of Labor and independent economic development agencies. It turned out his projection included indirect jobs that weren’t typically counted in initial announcements, a nuance he hadn’t fully articulated. Had we not verified, we would have published an inflated figure that could have misled the public and damaged our credibility. According to a Pew Research Center report from 2023, public trust in news media remains low, making diligent verification more critical than ever. Always, always, always verify. No expert is infallible.
The need for thorough verification extends to all areas of reporting, especially when considering the credibility of news film and other media. This is crucial for maintaining trust and ensuring accuracy in a rapidly evolving news landscape. Furthermore, in an era where journalism is deconstructing 2026’s global narratives, the importance of robust fact-checking cannot be overstated.
Neglecting the “Why”: Beyond the What and How
Many interviews focus on the “what” and the “how.” What happened? How does it work? These are essential, but the truly insightful interviews delve into the “why.” Why is this significant? Why should people care? Why did this particular outcome occur instead of another? This is where the expert’s unique perspective, their years of experience and study, truly shine.
When interviewing a judge from the Fulton County Superior Court about a landmark ruling, it’s easy to get bogged down in the legal precedents and procedural steps. But the real value comes from asking, “Why do you believe this ruling sets a new standard?” or “What are the broader societal implications of this decision, beyond the immediate legal outcome?” This pushes the expert beyond recounting facts and into analysis and interpretation, which is precisely what audiences crave. It’s the difference between merely reporting a decision and explaining its profound impact. I’ve found that asking “why” often unlocks the most compelling soundbites and the deepest understanding of a topic. This approach is also vital when conducting news analysis to deconstruct 2026 narratives, helping to reveal underlying motivations and impacts.
Mastering the art of interviews with experts is an ongoing process, a blend of meticulous preparation, active listening, flexible thinking, rigorous verification, and a relentless pursuit of deeper understanding. These are not just professional courtesies; they are journalistic imperatives that elevate our reporting and better serve our audiences. Ignore them at your peril.
What is the most common mistake reporters make when interviewing experts?
The most common mistake is insufficient preparation, leading to generic questions that fail to extract unique or deep insights from the expert’s specific knowledge base.
How can I ensure an expert provides specific, actionable information rather than vague generalities?
To get specific information, research the expert’s published work, recent statements, and particular areas of expertise, then tailor your questions to those specific points. Avoid broad, open-ended questions that don’t demonstrate your understanding of their niche.
Is it acceptable to deviate from my prepared interview questions?
Absolutely. While a prepared outline is crucial, flexibility is vital. If an expert introduces a new, relevant, and compelling point, pivot your questions to explore that tangent fully. Rigid adherence to a script can cause you to miss significant insights.
Why is verifying an expert’s information so important?
Experts, like anyone, can make errors, misremember, or present information with a slight bias. Verifying their data, statistics, or claims with independent, authoritative sources maintains journalistic integrity and prevents the publication of inaccurate information.
What role does the “why” question play in expert interviews?
Asking “why” pushes experts beyond factual recounting into analysis, interpretation, and the broader implications of their knowledge. It helps uncover the significance and impact of information, providing deeper context and understanding for the audience.
