News Interviews: 5 Expert Mistakes to Avoid in 2026

Conducting effective interviews with experts is a cornerstone of impactful news reporting, yet many journalists, even seasoned ones, routinely stumble through common pitfalls. These errors don’t just waste valuable time; they dilute the quality of your content, undermine your credibility, and often leave your audience with more questions than answers. What if we could consistently extract profound insights and compelling narratives from every expert interaction?

Failing to Do Your Homework: The Cardinal Sin

The single biggest mistake I see, time and again, is a lack of preparation. Journalists, especially those on tight deadlines covering multiple beats, often skim bios or rely on a quick Google search before an interview. This is a recipe for disaster. When you’re speaking with a leading academic from Georgia Tech’s School of Cybersecurity and Privacy or a principal economist from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, they expect you to be informed. Anything less is disrespectful and immediately signals that you haven’t valued their time enough to understand their specific contributions to their field.

I once had a client, a bright young reporter covering the burgeoning AI ethics space, schedule an interview with Dr. Anya Sharma, a renowned ethicist at Emory University. The reporter, let’s call her Sarah, spent 15 minutes asking questions that were clearly answered in the first two pages of Dr. Sharma’s most cited paper. Dr. Sharma, politely but firmly, redirected Sarah multiple times, eventually stating, “Perhaps you should review my work on algorithmic bias before we continue.” The interview ended shortly after, yielding zero original insight. Sarah learned a hard lesson that day: surface-level knowledge won’t cut it. You need to understand their specific niche, their published works, their recent public statements, and even their professional affiliations. This allows you to ask questions that build upon their expertise, not merely rehash it.

Asking the Wrong Questions: Closed-Ended Traps and Leading Statements

Many journalists fall into the trap of asking questions that elicit only “yes” or “no” answers, or worse, questions that subtly guide the expert towards a predetermined narrative. This isn’t interviewing; it’s confirmation bias in action. For instance, asking a climate scientist, “Do you agree that carbon emissions are the primary driver of global warming?” is far less effective than, “Could you elaborate on the most significant factors contributing to global warming, in your view?” The latter opens the door for a nuanced discussion, potentially revealing insights you hadn’t even considered.

My team at the news desk implemented a mandatory “open-ended question” workshop after reviewing several weeks of interviews that felt flat. We found reporters were consistently using phrases like “Is it true that…?” or “Don’t you think…?” instead of “How does X affect Y?” or “What are the implications of Z?” The shift was dramatic. Expert responses became richer, more detailed, and far more quotable. We even saw a 20% increase in average quote length from experts within two months, according to our internal content analysis metrics. Remember, your goal is to extract their unique perspective, not to get them to parrot yours. Frame your questions to encourage storytelling, explanation, and critical analysis.

Poor Listening and Rushing to the Next Point

This mistake is insidious because it often stems from good intentions – a desire to cover all your prepared questions. However, the best interviews are dynamic conversations, not rigid interrogations. When an expert offers a profound insight or mentions a tangential but fascinating point, a common error is to ignore it and plow ahead to the next item on your list. This means you’re missing opportunities for deeper exploration.

I recall an interview with Dr. Evelyn Reed, a leading urban planner at Georgia State University, discussing the revitalization efforts around Centennial Olympic Park. She mentioned offhand, “Of course, the biggest hurdle remains the interplay between city planning and the often-overlooked environmental justice concerns in adjacent neighborhoods.” My junior reporter, focused on his next question about economic impact, completely missed the goldmine. I interjected, “Dr. Reed, you just touched on environmental justice – could you expand on how that specifically impacts the Centennial Park project?” Her subsequent explanation became the most compelling part of the entire piece, revealing layers of complexity that the initial questions would never have uncovered. Active listening isn’t just about hearing; it’s about discerning what’s truly important and then drilling down. Don’t be afraid to deviate from your script if the conversation takes an unexpected, valuable turn. Your prepared questions are a guide, not a straitjacket.

Ignoring the Human Element: Forgetting They’re People Too

It’s easy to view experts as walking encyclopedias, devoid of personality or context. But they are individuals with motivations, experiences, and sometimes, strong opinions that shape their professional views. Failing to acknowledge this can lead to sterile interviews. A brief, genuine rapport-building moment at the beginning can make a world of difference. Ask about their recent research, a recent publication, or even a general observation about their field. This isn’t wasted time; it’s an investment in a more candid and insightful exchange.

Furthermore, consider the environment. While most interviews are remote now, if you’re ever in person, ensure comfort. Offer water. Acknowledge their time. Little courtesies foster an atmosphere of mutual respect. I’ve seen experts visibly relax and open up after a journalist genuinely acknowledged their packed schedule or their recent award. This isn’t about being chummy; it’s about recognizing their humanity and professional standing, which often translates into more detailed and less guarded answers. Ultimately, a more comfortable expert is a more forthcoming expert.

Case Study: The Fulton County Infrastructure Debacle

Let me illustrate with a concrete example. Last year, our news organization was covering a significant infrastructure project proposed for Fulton County – a multi-billion dollar expansion of the I-285 perimeter, including new rapid transit lanes. Public sentiment was divided, with concerns about eminent domain, environmental impact, and cost overruns. We needed expert commentary from various angles.

Our initial round of interviews with traffic engineers from the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and urban planning professors from Georgia State yielded some data, but lacked depth. The questions were too general: “What are the benefits of this project?” “How will it impact traffic?” The answers were predictably broad and often felt like regurgitations of press releases.

We completely retooled our approach for the second round. Instead of broad questions, we targeted specific issues raised by community groups. For an interview with Dr. Marcus Thorne, a transportation economist specializing in public-private partnerships from the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, we focused on the financial structure. My reporter, Sarah (the same one from the Emory incident, now much improved!), prepared diligently. She identified Dr. Thorne’s recent paper on “Value Capture Financing in Metropolitan Transit Projects” and his specific critiques of similar projects in Texas.

Her questions weren’t “Is this project financially sound?” but rather:

• “Dr. Thorne, given your work on value capture, how do you see the proposed bond structure for the I-285 expansion aligning with, or deviating from, successful models you’ve studied?”
• “In your paper ‘Financing Tomorrow’s Commute,’ you discuss the long-term fiscal risks of revenue-sharing agreements in large-scale infrastructure. Could you apply that lens to the projected 30-year operational agreement for this specific project?”
• “Community groups have raised concerns about the equitable distribution of benefits, especially given the planned tolling mechanisms. From an economic justice perspective, what are the potential externalities of this funding model on lower-income commuters in South Fulton?”

The result? Dr. Thorne provided specific, data-backed critiques and alternative proposals. He broke down the intricacies of the financing model, citing specific sections of the GDOT’s project proposal that he found problematic. He even referenced case studies from Dallas and Houston where similar funding structures led to unforeseen fiscal burdens. We captured quotes that were not just informative, but authoritative and actionable, allowing us to publish a deeply analytical piece that went beyond superficial reporting. This approach, which took more preparation time – roughly 3 hours per expert interview for research and question formulation, compared to 30 minutes previously – ultimately saved us time in editing and fact-checking, and significantly boosted the article’s impact. The lesson here is clear: precision in questioning, informed by deep research, yields unparalleled insights.

Neglecting Follow-Up and Fact-Checking

The interview doesn’t end when the recording stops. A common mistake is to simply transcribe (or worse, rely on memory) and then immediately start writing. Experts, while authoritative, can sometimes misstate facts, offer projections that need qualification, or use jargon that requires clarification. It is your responsibility, not theirs, to ensure accuracy and clarity for your audience.

Always budget time for follow-up questions, either via email or a quick phone call. If an expert mentions a specific study or report, ask for the source. If they use a technical term, confirm its precise meaning in layman’s terms. I insist that my reporters verify every statistic and significant claim made by an expert against at least one other credible source, whether it’s a government report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or a peer-reviewed academic paper from a journal like Nature or Science. This isn’t questioning their integrity; it’s upholding journalistic rigor. A Reuters report on editorial standards emphasizes the importance of independent verification, stating, “All facts must be checked. No claim should be taken at face value.” This commitment to accuracy builds trust with your audience and protects your news organization from embarrassing retractions.

Mastering the art of interviewing experts is a continuous journey, but by consciously avoiding these common missteps, journalists can dramatically elevate the quality of their news reporting and deliver truly insightful content to their audience.