Opinion: Conducting effective interviews with experts in the news industry isn’t just about asking questions; it’s about strategic engagement, rigorous preparation, and avoiding pitfalls that can undermine your credibility and the story’s impact. Far too often, journalists, even seasoned ones, stumble into common traps that dilute the authority of their sources and, by extension, their reporting. My firm belief is that most mistakes stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the expert’s value and the journalist’s role in extracting that value, leading to interviews that are superficial, misdirected, or, worst of all, inaccurate. Are you making these critical errors?
Key Takeaways
- Thoroughly research your expert’s specific domain and recent work to formulate precise, informed questions that demonstrate your understanding.
- Always provide your expert with the interview’s scope and key themes in advance, allowing them to prepare and offer more nuanced insights.
- Challenge vague or overly broad statements from experts with follow-up questions that demand specific examples, data, or actionable context.
- Record and transcribe interviews meticulously, then cross-reference quotes against the original audio to prevent misattribution or misinterpretation.
- Focus on clarity and conciseness in your questions, avoiding jargon or leading statements that can bias an expert’s response.
The Peril of Under-Preparation: A Recipe for Superficiality
I’ve seen it countless times in my two decades consulting for newsrooms, from major wire services to local Atlanta-based investigative desks: a journalist, often under deadline pressure, approaches an expert with only a cursory understanding of their work. This isn’t just rude; it’s professionally negligent. When you haven’t done your homework, your questions will inevitably be broad, generic, and fail to tap into the expert’s deepest knowledge. Think about it: if you’re interviewing Dr. Anya Sharma from the Emory University School of Medicine about advancements in mRNA vaccine technology, and your first question is “So, tell me about vaccines?”, you’ve already lost. She’s likely to give you a boilerplate answer, not the nuanced, cutting-edge insight you need for a compelling story. This isn’t just about wasting her time; it’s about squandering a valuable opportunity to elevate your reporting.
My advice is always to become a mini-expert yourself before the interview. Read their latest papers, check their institutional bio, review their past media appearances. For instance, if I’m preparing to interview a transportation specialist from the Georgia Department of Transportation about the new I-285 Express Lanes project, I’m not just reading the press release. I’m digging into the environmental impact studies, the traffic flow projections, and the public feedback reports. For a deeper understanding of how to approach complex topics, consider our guide on news deconstruction for 2026. I want to know the specific engineering challenges faced near the Spaghetti Junction interchange, or the projected impact on commuters heading from Cobb County into Midtown. This deep dive allows me to ask questions like, “Given the recent report from the Atlanta Regional Commission [Atlanta Regional Commission] on projected population growth in Gwinnett County, how might that affect the long-term efficacy of the current tolling structure on the I-85 extension?” That’s a question that demands a substantive answer, not a soundbite.
Some argue that time constraints make such exhaustive preparation impractical, especially in fast-paced news cycles. I reject this outright. While I acknowledge the pressures, effective preparation doesn’t mean writing a dissertation; it means targeted, strategic research. Even 30 minutes of focused reading on an expert’s recent publications can transform an interview from mediocre to insightful. It’s about efficiency, not endless hours. A former client, a reporter at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, once confessed to me that he used to just skim bios. After implementing a more rigorous pre-interview research protocol, he saw a dramatic increase in the depth and exclusivity of his quotes, transforming his news pieces from merely informative to truly authoritative. The evidence is clear: preparation breeds authority. Without it, you’re just another voice in the noise, barely scratching the surface of what your expert truly knows.
Mismanaging Expectations and the Art of the Follow-Up
Another prevalent mistake in interviews with experts is the failure to properly set expectations, both for yourself and for the expert, followed by an inability to conduct incisive follow-up. Journalists often jump straight into recording without clearly outlining the story’s angle, the specific areas of expertise they hope to tap into, or even the expected duration. This leaves the expert guessing, and a guessing expert is a less effective one. They might offer general information when you need specifics, or tangent into areas irrelevant to your narrative. It’s like asking a surgeon to “talk about medicine” without specifying you need information on laparoscopic appendectomies for a piece on minimally invasive surgical techniques. You’ll get a lecture on anatomy, not the targeted insights you require.
Before any interview, I insist my clients send a brief email or make a quick call to the expert, outlining the story’s premise, the key questions or themes they plan to cover, and the desired length of the conversation. This isn’t about giving them the answers; it’s about allowing them to gather their thoughts, pull relevant data, or recall specific examples that will enrich your story. A well-prepared expert will deliver gold. A perfect example comes from a project I worked on with a tech news outlet covering the rollout of new AI regulations. The reporter, after my coaching, sent a detailed pre-interview brief to a legal scholar specializing in intellectual property law at Georgia State University. The brief specifically mentioned the reporter’s focus on the implications of the proposed “AI Act” on open-source large language models. This allowed the professor to come armed with specific case law precedents and provide a nuanced analysis of potential legislative loopholes, which became the cornerstone of the article. Without that brief, the interview would have likely stayed at a high-level discussion of AI ethics, missing the crucial legal specifics.
Beyond setting expectations, the journalist’s greatest tool during the interview itself is the follow-up question. Many reporters are too timid, too focused on getting through their prepared list, or too easily satisfied with a vague answer. An expert might say, “The market is experiencing significant volatility due to geopolitical tensions.” While true, it’s not particularly helpful. Your job is to push: “Can you provide a specific example of how this volatility manifests? Are we talking about a 5% swing in the Dow Jones Industrial Average [Reuters Markets] over a week, or something more systemic like a shift in institutional investment patterns? And which specific geopolitical tensions are you referring to – the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, or the rising tensions in the South China Sea?” Demand specifics. Demand data. Demand examples. If they offer a general statement, ask, “Can you illustrate that with a real-world scenario?” This isn’t confrontational; it’s journalistic rigor. You’re not there to simply record; you’re there to extract concrete, verifiable information that adds substance to your narrative. Over my career, I’ve found that the best interviews are less about the initial question and more about the five subsequent questions that peel back the layers of a complex issue. This approach is key to developing investigative reports in 2026 that truly uncover truth.
The Pitfall of Misinterpretation and Selective Quoting
The final, and perhaps most damaging, mistake I observe is the misinterpretation of expert statements, often compounded by selective quoting or, worse, quoting out of context. This isn’t always malicious; sometimes it’s born of haste, a lack of understanding of the expert’s jargon, or a desire to fit a quote into a pre-conceived narrative. Regardless of the intent, the outcome is the same: the expert’s authority is undermined, the story’s accuracy is compromised, and the journalist’s credibility takes a hit. I once worked with a regional newspaper that published a piece on urban planning where an architect’s quote was used to suggest he supported tearing down historic buildings for new developments, when in fact, he was arguing for adaptive reuse. The resulting public outcry was immense, and the newspaper had to issue a retraction, severely damaging its relationship with the local professional community.
My steadfast rule is this: record every interview, and transcribe meticulously. Even if you only use a snippet, having the full context of the conversation is invaluable. When you’re pulling quotes, go back to the original audio. Listen to the expert’s tone, the preceding and succeeding sentences. Is the quote truly reflective of their overall message? Are you inadvertently omitting a crucial caveat or nuance? For complex or highly technical subjects, I strongly advocate for offering the expert a chance to review their direct quotes for accuracy before publication. This is not about letting them edit your story or control your narrative – absolutely not. It’s about verifying that their precise words and intended meaning are accurately represented. Many news organizations have policies against this, fearing editorial interference, but I argue that for highly specialized topics, a quick check of direct quotes ensures factual fidelity and prevents embarrassing corrections down the line. It’s a risk mitigation strategy that protects both the journalist and the news outlet.
I recall a specific instance where a medical reporter, covering a new oncology treatment at Northside Hospital in Sandy Springs, misquoted a leading oncologist about the treatment’s success rate, conflating “disease stabilization” with “complete remission.” The error was caught only because the reporter, following my guidance, sent the direct quotes back to the doctor for review. The doctor immediately identified the error, which could have led to false hope for patients and a significant credibility crisis for the news organization. The reporter made the correction, and the integrity of the story was preserved. This isn’t about hand-holding; it’s about ensuring that the information disseminated to the public is precise and responsible, particularly when dealing with sensitive topics. Your role is to be a conduit of accurate information, not a filter that distorts it. Dismissing this step as “too much trouble” or “ceding control” is a disservice to your audience and your profession. The true mark of a professional is their commitment to accuracy, even if it requires a slight deviation from traditional practices. This dedication to accurate reporting is a cornerstone of journalism in 2026.
Ultimately, mastering interviews with experts requires more than just a list of questions; it demands respect for their knowledge, meticulous preparation, relentless pursuit of specificity, and an unwavering commitment to accurate representation. Your audience relies on you to translate complex information clearly and correctly, and the quality of your expert interviews is paramount to fulfilling that trust.
How can I ensure my questions are specific enough for an expert?
To ensure specific questions, conduct thorough pre-interview research on the expert’s recent work, publications, and specific areas of interest. Frame your questions around concrete case studies, recent data, or specific policy proposals rather than general concepts. For example, instead of “What are the challenges of climate change?”, ask “Given the recent IPCC report [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] on ocean warming, what are the most immediate policy challenges for coastal communities in Georgia?”
Is it acceptable to send questions to an expert in advance?
Yes, it is highly recommended to send a brief overview of the interview’s scope and key themes, and even a few primary questions, to the expert in advance. This allows them to prepare, gather relevant information, and provide more detailed and insightful responses. Be clear that these are guiding themes, and you may ask follow-up questions not explicitly listed.
What’s the best way to handle an expert who gives vague answers?
When an expert gives a vague answer, politely but firmly press for specifics. Ask follow-up questions such as “Can you give me a concrete example of that?”, “What data supports that statement?”, “Could you elaborate on the mechanism you just described?”, or “Who specifically would be impacted by that?” Don’t be afraid to ask for clarification until you fully understand their point.
Should I fact-check an expert’s statements?
Absolutely. While experts are authoritative in their fields, they are not infallible. All factual claims, statistics, or specific data points provided by an expert should be independently verified through reliable sources (e.g., government reports, academic studies, reputable wire services) before publication. Your journalistic integrity depends on it.
What if an expert uses jargon I don’t understand?
If an expert uses jargon or technical terms you don’t fully grasp, immediately ask them to explain it in simpler terms. It’s far better to clarify during the interview than to misinterpret or omit crucial information because you didn’t understand. Phrases like “Could you break that down for our general audience?” or “Can you explain what ‘quantum entanglement’ means in practical terms?” are perfectly acceptable and necessary.
