News Needs Experts: How Outlets Fail Readers

In an era saturated with information, discerning truth from noise is harder than ever. That’s why interviews with experts in news and other fields are not just valuable, they’re essential. But are news organizations truly investing in the kind of in-depth expert analysis the public desperately needs?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) found itself in hot water last year. A seemingly straightforward report on proposed zoning changes near the intersection of Northside Drive and I-75 spiraled into a misinformation nightmare. The initial article, sourced primarily from a neighborhood blog and a single disgruntled resident, painted a picture of unchecked development poised to decimate property values and clog already congested streets. The problem? It was largely inaccurate.

Homeowners, panicked by the AJC’s report, flooded city council meetings, armed with misinformation. Real estate deals fell through. Accusations flew. The city planning department was inundated with angry calls. The situation escalated to the point where the AJC was forced to issue a retraction and publish a follow-up piece. But the damage was done. Trust, once eroded, is difficult to rebuild.

What went wrong? A lack of interviews with experts. Specifically, the AJC failed to consult with urban planners, economists, and real estate analysts who could have provided crucial context and perspective.

“It’s not enough to simply report what someone says,” argues Dr. Anya Sharma, Professor of Urban Studies at Georgia State University. “Journalists have a responsibility to vet information and provide readers with a balanced view. That means talking to multiple sources, including those with specialized knowledge.” Dr. Sharma should know; she has advised multiple news outlets, including the NPR, on urban development issues. Her insights are invaluable.

The AJC’s initial report relied heavily on anecdotal evidence and emotionally charged rhetoric. A more responsible approach would have involved consulting with Dr. Sharma, or someone like her, to assess the potential impact of the zoning changes. An expert could have explained the city’s long-term development plans, analyzed the potential economic benefits of the project, and addressed the residents’ concerns with factual information. They could have also pointed out that similar projects in other Atlanta neighborhoods, like the redevelopment of Atlantic Station, had actually increased property values and improved quality of life.

I had a client last year, a small construction firm, who suffered a similar blow. They were bidding on a city contract to build affordable housing near the West End MARTA station. A local news blog, citing anonymous sources, ran a story claiming the firm had a history of shoddy workmanship and financial mismanagement. The story went viral on Nextdoor. The city, spooked by the negative publicity, pulled the contract. We later discovered that the “anonymous sources” were actually disgruntled former employees with axes to grind. The damage was immense. My client almost went bankrupt. What’s the lesson? Verify, verify, verify.

Expert analysis isn’t just about preventing misinformation; it’s also about enhancing the credibility of news organizations. A Pew Research Center study found that trust in the media is declining, with only 34% of Americans saying they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in newspapers, television, and radio news. One way to rebuild that trust is by consistently providing accurate, well-researched reporting that incorporates the insights of qualified experts.

Consider the coverage of the ongoing debate surrounding the Georgia State Board of Elections and its proposed changes to voting procedures. Many news outlets simply reported the statements issued by politicians and advocacy groups. Few bothered to consult with election law experts who could explain the legal implications of the changes, analyze their potential impact on voter turnout, and identify any potential conflicts with federal law.

“It’s crucial for journalists to go beyond the talking points and provide readers with a deeper understanding of the issues,” says Professor Charles Davis, a constitutional law expert at Emory University School of Law. “That means talking to people who have a genuine understanding of the subject matter, not just those who have a vested interest in the outcome.” He added, “The First Amendment isn’t a free pass for ignorance.”

Here’s what nobody tells you: finding the right expert isn’t always easy. It requires time, effort, and a willingness to look beyond the usual suspects. It also requires a commitment to diversity. News organizations have a responsibility to feature a wide range of voices, including women, people of color, and individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds. This isn’t just about being politically correct; it’s about ensuring that the news reflects the diversity of the communities they serve.

Furthermore, transparency is key. News organizations should always disclose any potential conflicts of interest that an expert may have. For example, if an expert is being paid by a particular company or organization, that should be clearly stated in the article or broadcast. This allows readers to evaluate the expert’s opinions in light of their potential biases.

I once consulted with a local TV station on a story about the proposed expansion of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The reporter interviewed an “aviation expert” who claimed the expansion would create thousands of jobs and generate billions of dollars in economic activity. What the reporter didn’t disclose was that the expert was being paid by the airport authority to promote the project. The resulting story was little more than a PR piece for the airport. This kind of blatant lack of transparency undermines the credibility of the entire news industry.

The AJC’s zoning debacle eventually led to some positive changes. The newspaper implemented a new fact-checking policy, requiring reporters to consult with at least two independent experts before publishing any story that could have a significant impact on the community. They also created a new “Community Voices” section, featuring opinion pieces from local residents and experts on a variety of topics. Did it completely repair the damage? No. But it was a step in the right direction.

The rise of AI-generated content makes the need for interviews with experts even more critical. While AI can quickly generate articles on a wide range of topics, it lacks the critical thinking skills and contextual understanding necessary to provide accurate and insightful analysis. AI can regurgitate facts, but it cannot provide the nuanced perspective that comes from years of experience and expertise. According to a AP News report, deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation are expected to surge during the 2028 election cycle. Can you spot a fake?

News organizations need to invest in human expertise, not replace it with algorithms. They need to prioritize quality over quantity, and they need to be willing to spend the time and resources necessary to produce accurate, well-researched reporting. Otherwise, they risk becoming irrelevant in a world awash in misinformation. As we look towards news in 2026, this becomes even more critical.

The AJC learned a valuable lesson. They realized that their credibility, and their very survival, depended on their ability to provide readers with trustworthy information. The lesson for all of us? Seek out news sources that prioritize expert analysis. Cross-reference information from multiple sources. And always be skeptical of anything you read online. Your ability to discern truth from fiction depends on it.

Don’t passively consume news; actively interrogate it. Seek out sources that prioritize expert analysis and hold them accountable. Your informed participation in civic life depends on it.

Don’t just read the headlines; understand the story behind them. By demanding expert analysis and holding news organizations accountable, we can create a more informed and engaged society. Start today: identify one news source you trust and one expert they frequently cite. Follow both closely. Your understanding of the world will deepen. To help you, here’s how to find real experts in news. Also, consider whether the news narratives are telling the whole story, or if something is missing. Finally, it’s worth asking: is this in-depth news or just more noise?