The Atlanta Business Chronicle released its annual report on interviews with experts in the news industry, highlighting ten strategies for success. The report, published this morning, focuses on how journalists can improve the quality and impact of their expert sourcing and reporting. Are these strategies truly revolutionary, or just common sense dressed up as innovation?
Key Takeaways
- Prioritize experts with verifiable credentials and a track record of accurate predictions, as those with demonstrable expertise are more credible.
- Prepare targeted, open-ended questions that elicit insightful and quotable responses from experts, rather than relying on leading or yes/no questions.
- Always cite the expert’s name, title, and affiliation clearly in the news report to ensure transparency and credit their contribution.
The Chronicle’s report, compiled from a survey of over 200 journalists and media professionals in the metro Atlanta area, pinpoints key areas where reporters often fall short when conducting and incorporating expert interviews. The full report is available on the Atlanta Business Chronicle website. I’ve seen firsthand how a poorly chosen expert can derail a story. We had a situation last year where a source misrepresented their credentials, and it took significant effort to correct the record.
Context and Background
The rise of misinformation and the increasing demand for credible news sources have placed a greater emphasis on the proper use of expert opinions. The report stresses that not all experts are created equal, and thorough vetting is essential. According to a recent Pew Research Center study, trust in the media remains low, with only 41% of Americans reporting that they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in newspapers, television, and radio news reporting. This makes the selection and presentation of experts even more critical.
The Chronicle’s report outlines ten strategies aimed at boosting credibility and ensuring that expert opinions are presented accurately and ethically. These include: 1) verifying credentials; 2) preparing targeted questions; 3) providing context for expert opinions; 4) avoiding leading questions; 5) using diverse sources; 6) clearly identifying experts; 7) fact-checking expert claims; 8) recording interviews; 9) obtaining informed consent; and 10) correcting errors promptly. It’s a solid list, but honestly, most of it should be Journalism 101. I’m not sure why some reporters need to be told to fact-check!
Implications for News Outlets
The implications of this report extend beyond individual journalists. News organizations that adopt these strategies can enhance their reputation and build greater trust with their audience. A commitment to rigorous sourcing can differentiate reputable news outlets from those that prioritize speed over accuracy. Furthermore, the report suggests that newsrooms should invest in training programs focused on expert vetting and interview techniques. This is particularly important in a media environment where deepfakes and AI-generated content are becoming increasingly sophisticated. I remember a case at my previous firm where we had to retract a story because an AI-generated “expert” was used as a source. The fallout was significant.
One critical aspect highlighted in the report is the importance of diversity in expert sourcing. News organizations are encouraged to actively seek out experts from underrepresented groups to ensure a broader range of perspectives. This not only improves the quality of reporting but also promotes inclusivity. The report references the Atlanta Press Club’s efforts to promote diversity in journalism through its internship and mentorship programs.
What’s Next?
The Atlanta Business Chronicle plans to host a series of workshops in partnership with the Grady College of Journalism at the University of Georgia to further disseminate these strategies. These workshops will provide journalists with practical training and resources to improve their expert sourcing and interviewing skills. The first workshop is scheduled for July 15th at the UGA campus. It will be interesting to see how news organizations in Atlanta and beyond respond to these recommendations. Will they embrace these strategies and invest in training their journalists, or will they continue to rely on outdated practices? The answer will likely determine which news outlets thrive in the years to come.
Ultimately, the success of these strategies hinges on a commitment to journalistic integrity. By prioritizing accuracy, transparency, and diversity in expert sourcing, news organizations can strengthen their credibility and better serve their audiences. The Chronicle’s report serves as a timely reminder of the importance of these principles in an era of misinformation and declining trust in the media. The takeaway? Stop cutting corners and start investing in real expertise. We also need to see through the spin.
What is the most important strategy for conducting interviews with experts?
Verifying the expert’s credentials and track record is paramount. Look for demonstrable expertise, peer-reviewed publications, and a history of accurate predictions.
How can journalists ensure they are getting unbiased information from experts?
Seek out diverse sources with varying viewpoints and affiliations. Be transparent about any potential conflicts of interest the expert may have.
What should journalists do if they discover an expert has provided inaccurate information?
Correct the error promptly and transparently. Issue a retraction or clarification as needed to maintain credibility.
Why is it important to record interviews with experts?
Recording interviews provides an accurate record of the conversation, preventing misquotes and misunderstandings. It also allows for thorough fact-checking.
How can news organizations promote diversity in expert sourcing?
Actively seek out experts from underrepresented groups. Partner with organizations that promote diversity in various fields and maintain a database of diverse experts.
