Journalists: Fix Expert Interviews in 2026

Opinion: Conducting effective interviews with experts for news stories is harder than it looks. Many journalists, even seasoned ones, routinely make fundamental errors that undermine the credibility of their reporting, obscure critical information, and ultimately shortchange their audience. I contend that these common missteps are not merely oversights but systemic failures in journalistic practice that demand immediate correction, especially as the demand for authoritative, nuanced reporting grows.

Failing to Do Your Homework: The Cardinal Sin

The most egregious mistake I see, time and again, is a reporter walking into an interview with an expert ill-prepared. This isn’t just about knowing the basic facts of your story; it’s about understanding the expert’s specific area of specialization, their previous publications, and their potential biases. I once worked with a young reporter who was interviewing a renowned epidemiologist about a new viral strain. The reporter, bless her heart, had clearly only skimmed the press release. She asked questions that the expert had answered countless times in public forums, questions easily addressed by a five-minute search on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website. The expert’s polite but visibly exasperated responses yielded little new information, and the final article suffered from a lack of depth. That kind of superficiality wastes everyone’s time and, more importantly, produces shallow journalism.

My approach, honed over two decades in newsrooms, is to dedicate at least an hour, sometimes two, to researching the expert themselves. What are their academic credentials? Where do they publish? Have they taken public stances on related issues? What are their potential conflicts of interest? For instance, if I’m interviewing an economist about inflation, I’m not just reading their latest paper; I’m looking at their institutional affiliations, their past policy recommendations, and how those align (or diverge) with current government policy. This isn’t about setting traps; it’s about being able to ask informed follow-up questions that demonstrate you’ve engaged with their work. It’s about earning their respect, which makes them more likely to share genuinely novel insights.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center (Pew Research Center) in 2025 indicated that nearly 60% of journalists admit to feeling “underprepared” for expert interviews at least some of the time, citing time constraints as the primary factor. While deadlines are real, this statistic is frankly alarming. The quality of your output directly correlates with the quality of your input. You simply cannot extract valuable information if you don’t know what questions to ask, or worse, if you ask questions that reveal your ignorance. This isn’t merely an inconvenience for the expert; it’s a disservice to the public who relies on us for accurate, well-researched information.

The Script Trap: When Preparation Becomes a Prison

While preparation is paramount, slavishly sticking to a pre-written script is another common pitfall that stifles genuine discovery. I’ve seen reporters so focused on ticking off their list of questions that they completely miss a golden nugget of information an expert offers off-hand. An interview is a conversation, not an interrogation. The best insights often emerge from unexpected tangents or an expert elaborates on a point you hadn’t explicitly asked about. This requires active listening, a skill that seems to be diminishing in our fast-paced news cycle.

Consider a case study from my own experience: In late 2024, I was interviewing Dr. Evelyn Reed, a leading climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, about the impact of rising sea levels on coastal infrastructure. My initial questions focused on engineering solutions and projected costs. Dr. Reed, however, began discussing the unforeseen social equity implications for low-income communities in coastal Georgia, particularly around Brunswick and Savannah, who lacked the resources to adapt. She mentioned a specific, under-reported phenomenon of “climate gentrification” in certain neighborhoods. Had I rigidly stuck to my prepared questions about concrete barriers and drainage systems, I would have completely missed that crucial, nuanced angle. Instead, I pivoted, asking follow-up questions about specific communities, displacement patterns, and the policy gaps that allowed this to happen. That shift transformed a technical report into a powerful human interest story with significant policy implications.

The danger here is twofold: you miss unexpected insights, and you make the interview feel transactional, not collaborative. Experts are often passionate about their work and want to share their knowledge. When you show genuine curiosity and flexibility, they are more likely to open up and provide the kind of rich detail that elevates a story. Yes, have your core questions, but view them as a guide, not a straitjacket. Be ready to chase an interesting thread, even if it wasn’t on your original outline. That’s where the real news often lies.

Lack of Challenge and Superficial Engagement

Reporters sometimes treat experts with an almost reverential deference, failing to challenge their assertions or ask for clarification. This is a critical error. An expert, no matter how distinguished, is not infallible. Their opinions are often shaped by their specific field, their research methodologies, and yes, their own biases. Our role as journalists is not just to transcribe their statements but to critically engage with them.

I recall an interview a colleague conducted with a cybersecurity expert who was making sweeping claims about the vulnerability of Georgia’s election systems. My colleague, instead of asking for specific examples or data points, simply nodded along. It wasn’t until I reviewed the transcript that I realized the expert had offered very little concrete evidence for his alarming statements. We had to go back for a follow-up, which was awkward and time-consuming, simply because the initial interviewer hadn’t pushed for specifics. This isn’t about being confrontational; it’s about being rigorous. Ask, “Can you provide data to support that claim?” or “Are there alternative interpretations of that evidence?” or “What are the limitations of your study?” These aren’t aggressive questions; they are fundamental to journalistic due diligence.

Furthermore, many journalists stop at the “what” and fail to probe the “why” or “how.” An expert might state, “Economic growth is slowing.” A superficial interview would accept that. A good interview asks, “Why is it slowing? What specific indicators are you seeing? How does this compare to previous slowdowns? What are the potential consequences for average Georgians?” We need to move beyond surface-level facts and dig into the underlying mechanisms and broader implications. This requires asking open-ended questions that encourage detailed explanations rather than simple yes/no answers. It requires patience and a willingness to follow complex chains of thought. Our audience deserves more than just headlines; they deserve understanding, and that comes from deep engagement with our sources.

In conclusion, mastering the art of interviewing experts for news is not a passive endeavor; it demands meticulous preparation, flexible engagement, and rigorous critical thinking. By avoiding these common pitfalls, journalists can elevate their reporting, provide deeper insights, and ultimately serve their audience with the authoritative, nuanced information they desperately need. This is especially crucial in an era where fake news and misinformation are rampant, making the role of credible journalism more vital than ever. The ability to verify information and challenge claims, even from experts, is paramount to maintaining public trust and combating the spread of false narratives. Journalists must be equipped to navigate the complexities of information in 2026 and beyond.

Anthony White

Media Ethics Consultant Certified Media Ethics Professional (CMEP)

Anthony White is a seasoned Media Ethics Consultant and veteran news analyst with over a decade of experience navigating the complex landscape of modern journalism. She specializes in dissecting the "news" within the news, identifying bias, and promoting responsible reporting. Prior to her consulting work, Anthony spent eight years at the Institute for Journalistic Integrity, developing ethical guidelines for news organizations. She also served as a senior analyst at the Center for Media Accountability. Her work has been instrumental in shaping the public discourse around responsible reporting, most notably through her contributions to the 'Fair Reporting Practices Act' initiative.

Credentials 12+ years experience