Interview Experts: 5 Rules for Impactful News

Landing an exclusive interview with an expert can be a goldmine for any news outlet, offering unparalleled insight and breaking stories. Yet, far too often, these opportunities are squandered by preventable missteps that leave both the interviewer and the audience feeling shortchanged. I’ve seen firsthand how easily a promising conversation can derail into a muddled mess. So, how do we ensure our interviews with experts truly deliver impactful news?

Failing to Prepare: The Cardinal Sin

The single biggest blunder I witness in interviews with experts is a glaring lack of preparation. It’s not just about knowing their name; it’s about understanding their body of work, their nuanced positions, and the specific controversies or breakthroughs they’ve been involved with. Without this foundation, you’re essentially asking an expert to educate you on basic concepts, which is a waste of everyone’s valuable time.

I recall a particularly cringeworthy instance from early in my career, when a junior reporter (let’s call him Mark) was assigned to interview Dr. Evelyn Reed, a renowned climatologist from the NPR Climate Desk, about a groundbreaking new study on Arctic ice melt. Mark, bless his heart, started the interview by asking, “So, Dr. Reed, can you explain to our audience what climate change is?” Dr. Reed, a woman who has literally written textbooks on the subject, paused, a flicker of polite exasperation crossing her face. The interview never recovered. The valuable insights she could have offered on the study’s methodology, its implications for global sea levels, or the political hurdles to implementing its findings were lost because Mark hadn’t done his homework. He hadn’t even skimmed her most recent peer-reviewed publications, let alone her widely cited book, “The Warming World: A Century of Change.” It was a missed opportunity of epic proportions, and the resulting news piece was predictably bland, offering no fresh perspective.

My approach, honed over two decades in newsrooms from Atlanta to London, dictates a minimum of three hours of dedicated research for any significant expert interview. This includes reviewing their recent publications, scanning news archives for previous interviews they’ve given, and even checking their social media for any recent comments that might provide an angle. I want to know their talking points so I can consciously avoid them and push for new information. I aim to formulate at least 10-15 questions, knowing full well I might only get to half of them, but each one is designed to elicit a specific, insightful response, not a rehash of something they’ve said a dozen times before. This isn’t just about getting good quotes; it’s about demonstrating respect for the expert’s time and intellect, which in turn encourages them to open up and share more deeply.

Poor Questioning: The Art of the Open-Ended Probe

Beyond insufficient preparation, the next major pitfall is the type of questions asked. Many interviewers fall into the trap of asking “yes” or “no” questions, or questions that can be answered with a simple fact. This leads to stilted conversations and prevents the expert from truly elaborating on their insights.

Consider the difference between “Is the economy recovering?” and “What specific indicators suggest a robust economic recovery, and what challenges remain on the horizon for businesses in the Perimeter Center area?” The first invites a one-word answer. The second compels the expert to provide context, analysis, and potentially, forward-looking predictions. You want to give your expert room to breathe, to connect ideas, and to reveal the intricacies of their thought process. This means favoring “how,” “why,” and “what if” questions. I often start with a broad, open-ended question to get them talking, then follow up with more specific probes based on their initial response. It’s a dance, not an interrogation, and the goal is to extract layers of understanding, not just sound bites.

Another common mistake is asking multiple questions at once. This overwhelms the expert and often leads them to pick the easiest question to answer, ignoring the more complex ones. Stick to one clear question at a time. If you have several related points, break them down. For example, instead of “What are the ethical implications of AI in healthcare, and how will regulations keep up with its rapid development, particularly concerning patient data privacy?” ask about ethical implications first, then about regulatory challenges, and then specifically about data privacy. This structured approach helps both you and the expert maintain focus and ensures a more comprehensive discussion. I’ve found that using the Pew Research Center’s guidelines on survey question design, though intended for a different context, offers invaluable lessons on clarity and avoiding bias in questioning.

Ignoring Logistics and Technicalities: The Unseen Saboteurs

Even with brilliant preparation and incisive questions, an interview can be ruined by overlooking the mundane but critical details. I’m talking about audio quality, environment, and establishing clear boundaries.

Audio Quality: Your Audience’s Ears Deserve Better

Nothing screams amateur louder than poor audio. In 2026, there is simply no excuse for a crackling phone line or a muffled recording. Always use a dedicated digital recorder. I personally swear by the Zoom H4n Pro for its reliability and dual-mic recording capabilities. Furthermore, I always, always, have a backup recording method, whether it’s a second recorder or a smartphone app like Rev Call Recorder for phone interviews. I once lost an entire interview with a leading economist from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta due to a corrupted audio file on a single recorder. It was a brutal lesson learned. Now, redundancy is non-negotiable. Ensure your expert is in a quiet environment, too. I’ll even politely suggest they move away from a noisy coffee shop or turn off background music. A few seconds of awkward silence to ensure clean audio is always worth it.

Establishing Ground Rules: Trust is Paramount

Before any substantive questions begin, clearly outline the interview’s parameters. Is it “on the record,” “off the record,” or “on background”? This is absolutely vital for maintaining trust and avoiding journalistic missteps. “On the record” means everything can be quoted directly and attributed. “Off the record” means the information cannot be used in any way, shape, or form, and often serves to give the journalist context. “On background” means the information can be used, but the source cannot be identified. Sometimes we agree to use a descriptor like “a senior official in the Governor’s office” or “sources close to the investigation.” I make it a point to explicitly state: “Everything we discuss today is on the record unless you explicitly state otherwise before you say it.” This puts the onus on the expert to clarify, preventing any ambiguity. Misattributing an off-the-record comment can destroy a source relationship permanently, and in the worst cases, lead to legal challenges. We had a reporter at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution face a stern reprimand after accidentally quoting an “on background” source by name in a story about zoning changes in Buckhead, nearly jeopardizing future access to city council members.

Talking Too Much and Not Listening Enough: The Interviewer’s Ego Trap

This might sound counter-intuitive, but a common mistake is when the interviewer talks more than the expert. Your job is to facilitate, to guide, and to extract information, not to demonstrate your own knowledge or opinions. I’ve seen interviewers interrupt experts mid-sentence, finish their thoughts for them, or launch into lengthy monologues about their own experiences. This is not only rude but also actively detrimental to getting good news. The expert is there to provide their unique perspective, not to be an audience for yours.

My rule of thumb is the 70/30 split: the expert should be talking 70% of the time, and I should be talking 30% or less. This includes my questions, follow-ups, and brief interjections. It requires discipline, active listening, and a willingness to embrace silence. Sometimes, a well-placed pause after an expert finishes speaking will prompt them to elaborate further, offering an unexpected nugget of information. Don’t be afraid of silence; it can be a powerful tool. Furthermore, active listening isn’t just about staying quiet; it’s about truly absorbing what they’re saying so you can formulate intelligent follow-up questions that build on their points, rather than just mechanically moving down your pre-written list. The best interviews feel like a natural, flowing conversation, even though they are meticulously planned and guided.

Failing to Follow Up and Verify: Leaving Loose Ends

The interview doesn’t end when the recording stops. Many journalists, especially newer ones, pack up their gear and consider the job done. This is a significant oversight. A crucial part of responsible news gathering involves diligent follow-up and verification.

First, always offer a sincere thank you. A brief, personalized email within 24 hours expressing gratitude for their time and insights goes a long way in building professional relationships. I often include a specific point or two from our conversation that I found particularly insightful. It shows I was listening and value their contribution. Second, be prepared for additional questions. It’s rare that I don’t have a few lingering uncertainties or need clarification on a specific data point after reviewing my notes and transcription. A polite, concise email requesting this information is usually well-received. Crucially, if the expert mentions a specific report, study, or statistic, make sure you get the exact source. Don’t just take their word for it. Verification is paramount. If Dr. Anya Sharma, a public health expert from Emory University, states that “hospitalizations for respiratory viruses in Fulton County have increased by 15% year-over-year,” I will immediately follow up to ask for the specific CDC report or Georgia Department of Public Health data that supports that claim. My integrity, and the integrity of the news organization, depends on it.

Case Study: The Midtown Development Debacle

A few years ago, we were investigating a contentious new high-rise development proposal near Piedmont Park in Midtown Atlanta. We interviewed Sarah Jenkins, a prominent urban planning professor at Georgia Tech, who provided critical analysis on its potential impact on traffic congestion and green space. During the interview, she referenced a “little-known clause” in the city’s 2020 zoning ordinance that could potentially halt the project. She mentioned it almost as an aside. The junior reporter on the story nearly missed it, but I caught it during the review of the transcript.

I immediately followed up with Professor Jenkins, asking for the exact section number of the ordinance. She provided O.C.G.A. Section 36-66-5.1, a highly specific clause related to environmental impact assessments for projects exceeding a certain height and proximity to public parks. This wasn’t something easily found in a general search. This specific detail, obtained through diligent follow-up, became the cornerstone of our investigative piece. We then cross-referenced it with city planning documents and interviewed a city attorney, confirming its applicability. The news story we published, which ran in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, not only highlighted the community’s concerns but also provided a concrete legal avenue for opposition, shifting the entire public discourse around the development. Without that meticulous follow-up, the story would have been just another opinion piece; with it, it became a powerful piece of impactful journalism, directly impacting the outcome of a significant local issue.

Finally, always offer to share the published piece with your expert. It’s a professional courtesy and a way to show them how their contributions were used. This reinforces positive relationships and makes them more likely to agree to future interviews. Building a robust network of trusted expert sources is one of the most valuable assets a journalist can possess, and it begins with respecting their time and their knowledge. This practice contributes to a more informed news landscape.

Conclusion

Mastering interviews with experts demands meticulous preparation, thoughtful questioning, and rigorous follow-through. By avoiding these common pitfalls, journalists can transform routine conversations into powerful, insightful news that truly informs and impacts their audience. Invest in the process, and your news will shine.

Tobias Crane

Media Analyst and Lead Investigator Certified Information Integrity Professional (CIIP)

Tobias Crane is a seasoned Media Analyst and Lead Investigator at the Institute for Journalistic Integrity. With over a decade of experience dissecting the evolving landscape of news dissemination, he specializes in identifying and mitigating misinformation campaigns. He previously served as a senior researcher at the Global News Ethics Council. Tobias's work has been instrumental in shaping responsible reporting practices and promoting media literacy. A highlight of his career includes leading the team that exposed the 'Project Chimera' disinformation network, a complex operation targeting democratic elections.

Credentials 12+ years experience