As a veteran journalist who’s spent over two decades chasing stories, I’ve seen countless interviews with experts go sideways, often because of preventable errors. The news cycle demands precision, and when you’re relying on specialized knowledge to inform the public, those errors can undermine credibility, confuse audiences, and even propagate misinformation. We’re talking about the fundamental building blocks of accurate reporting here, and getting it wrong with an expert is a cardinal sin. What are the most common pitfalls that even seasoned reporters stumble into?
Key Takeaways
- Failing to conduct thorough pre-interview research on both the topic and the expert’s specific niche is the leading cause of superficial interviews.
- Reporters often neglect to confirm the expert’s specific area of authority, leading to misattributions or quotes outside their core competency.
- Over-reliance on pre-written questions without adapting to the expert’s responses stifles organic conversation and deeper insights.
- Poor active listening skills result in missed follow-up opportunities and a failure to clarify complex information for the audience.
- Not establishing clear boundaries and expectations for the interview, including off-the-record rules, can lead to significant post-interview issues.
The Peril of Superficial Preparation: When Ignorance Isn’t Bliss
I cannot stress this enough: the single biggest mistake I observe, time and time again, is inadequate preparation. It’s a cancer on good journalism. You call an expert, a leading neurosurgeon or a macroeconomic policy advisor, and you haven’t bothered to read their latest papers, understand their specific methodologies, or even grasp the basic terminology of their field. This isn’t just about sounding smart; it’s about asking intelligent questions that elicit valuable, nuanced answers. When a reporter asks a general, Wikipedia-level question, the expert immediately disengages. They know you haven’t done your homework, and they’ll give you a similarly superficial answer, if they give you one at all. It’s disrespectful, and it actively harms the quality of the news product.
Consider a scenario I encountered last year covering the emerging challenges in AI ethics. I was interviewing Dr. Anya Sharma, a renowned computational ethicist at Georgia Tech’s College of Computing. Another reporter, new to the beat, asked her, “So, what are some of the ethical problems with AI?” Dr. Sharma, visibly annoyed, gave a polite but incredibly broad answer about bias and data privacy – information anyone could find with a quick search. Later, I asked her about the specific implications of explainable AI (XAI) in military applications, referencing a paper she published in Nature Machine Intelligence the previous quarter. Her eyes lit up. We had a rich, detailed conversation that yielded truly insightful quotes about the challenges of algorithmic transparency in high-stakes environments. The difference? I had spent hours reading her work and related literature. My questions were precise, reflecting an understanding of her niche.
A recent study by the Pew Research Center in 2025 found that 68% of journalists admitted to spending less than 30 minutes preparing for interviews with experts on complex topics. This is a staggering indictment of our industry’s priorities. It’s not just about time; it’s about mindset. We need to internalize that the expert’s time is valuable, and our role is to extract unique insights, not to get them to regurgitate basic facts. If you can Google it, don’t ask it. Period.
Misidentifying Authority: The “Expert” Who Isn’t
Another prevalent mistake is failing to properly vet an expert’s actual area of authority. Just because someone has “Professor” in their title or works at a prestigious institution, it doesn’t mean they are the definitive voice on every tangent related to their broader field. I’ve seen this play out disastrously. A few years back, we were covering a story on rising homelessness in Atlanta’s Old Fourth Ward. A junior reporter, trying to be efficient, interviewed a professor of urban planning from Emory University. The professor spoke eloquently about zoning laws and historical development. However, when the reporter pressed him on the immediate, on-the-ground challenges faced by local shelters, the professor demurred. His expertise was academic, theoretical. He wasn’t the right person to speak to the operational realities of the Partnership for the Homeless or the direct impact on individuals seeking aid near the Civic Center MARTA station.
My professional assessment is that this often stems from a combination of time pressure and a lack of critical thinking during the sourcing stage. We see a name, a title, and we assume. But a true journalist digs deeper. I always advise my team to ask themselves: “What specific question am I trying to answer, and is this individual the absolute best, most qualified person to answer that specific question?” If you need to understand the molecular mechanisms of a new cancer drug, you don’t call a general practitioner; you call a pharmacologist or an oncologist specializing in that drug’s class. If you need to understand the intricacies of Georgia’s new O.C.G.A. Section 16-8-10 (related to organized retail theft), you call a prosecutor specializing in economic crimes, not just any criminal defense attorney. This seems obvious, but it’s astonishing how often it’s overlooked.
I recall a particularly cringe-worthy moment where a national news outlet interviewed an aerospace engineer about climate change policy. While engineers understand physics, his specific expertise was designing jet engines, not modeling global climate systems or evaluating carbon markets. The resulting quotes were technically correct but lacked the depth and policy context a climate scientist or economist could have provided. It’s a disservice to the audience and, frankly, to the expert themselves, forcing them into a role they’re not equipped for.
The Scripted Straitjacket: Ignoring the Organic Flow
We’re all taught to prepare questions. That’s fundamental. But a common mistake is clinging to a rigid list of questions like a life raft, rather than engaging in an actual conversation. This creates stilted, unnatural interviews where the reporter is simply checking boxes, not listening for new angles or deeper explanations. I call it the “scripted straitjacket.” The moment an expert offers an unexpected insight, a fascinating anecdote, or uses a term you don’t fully grasp, that’s your cue to deviate. That’s where the real story often lies.
Think about the difference between an interrogation and a dialogue. An interview with an expert should be a dialogue, albeit a directed one. I once had a client, a young reporter fresh out of journalism school, who was interviewing Dr. Evelyn Reed, a leading historian at the Atlanta History Center, about the city’s post-WWII growth. Dr. Reed mentioned, almost in passing, a little-known federal housing program that had an outsized, long-term impact on the demographic composition of specific neighborhoods in South Fulton County. My client, focused on her next question about the Olympics’ influence, completely missed the significance. I had to intervene after the interview, suggesting she follow up. That single lead, which came from an expert’s offhand remark, became the backbone of a compelling investigative piece on systemic inequality that won a regional award.
This goes hand-in-hand with poor active listening. My rule of thumb: if the expert says something that sparks a new question in your mind, or if they use jargon that might confuse your audience, stop them. Ask for clarification. Ask for an example. “Could you explain what ‘quantitative easing’ means for the average person buying groceries?” or “When you say ‘epigenetic markers,’ what’s a real-world example of that effect?” This isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a sign of a reporter committed to clarity and understanding for their audience. The best interviews are those where the reporter isn’t afraid to say, “Help me understand this better.”
Failing to Set Boundaries and Expectations: The Unspoken Rules
Perhaps less obvious but equally damaging is the failure to establish clear boundaries and expectations before or at the very beginning of an interview. This includes everything from the interview’s expected duration to whether specific information is “on the record,” “off the record,” or “on background.” In the fast-paced news environment of 2026, where soundbites are king and misinterpretations can go viral in minutes, these protocols are more critical than ever.
I’ve witnessed firsthand the fallout when these lines are blurred. A prominent scientist from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta once spoke to a reporter, discussing some preliminary, unconfirmed data about a novel pathogen. The reporter, assuming everything was on the record, quoted the scientist directly, leading to premature public alarm and a swift, embarrassing retraction. The scientist, understandably, refused to speak to that news organization again. It was a failure of communication on both sides, but primarily the reporter’s responsibility to clarify the terms.
My advice is always to explicitly state: “Just to confirm, everything we discuss today will be on the record for attribution, unless we explicitly agree otherwise. Is that clear?” For those sensitive conversations, learning the nuances of AP Stylebook’s guidelines on “off the record” and “on background” is non-negotiable. “Off the record” means you cannot use the information or attribute it. “On background” means you can use the information, but cannot attribute it to the source directly, often using phrases like “a source familiar with the matter” or “officials close to the investigation.” These are not interchangeable, and misunderstanding them can destroy trust and careers.
Moreover, confirm the scope. “We’re focusing on the economic impact of the recent interest rate hike, not the geopolitical implications, correct?” This helps the expert tailor their responses and prevents them from straying into areas you don’t need, or worse, into areas they’re not fully prepared to discuss publicly. Professionalism demands this clarity. It shows respect for the expert’s time and expertise, and it safeguards the integrity of your reporting.
The art of interviewing experts is not about trickery or confrontation; it’s about respectful inquiry, meticulous preparation, and genuine curiosity. The mistakes outlined above aren’t just minor missteps; they are fundamental failures that erode trust, diminish the quality of information reaching the public, and ultimately, undermine the very purpose of journalism. By avoiding these common pitfalls, we can elevate our reporting, provide audiences with truly informed perspectives, and ensure that the voices of authority are heard clearly and accurately. For more on ensuring your reporting is solid, consider our guide on Investigative Reports: The 18-Month Verification Rule. Understanding how to present complex information can also be enhanced by looking at how to effectively craft narratives for discerning minds. Ultimately, the goal is to combat the distrust in news that plagues our current information landscape.
How can I quickly research an expert before an interview?
Start by looking at their university or organizational profile, checking their LinkedIn, scanning their recent publications on Google Scholar or PubMed, and reviewing any previous media appearances. Focus on their specific areas of research or practical application rather than broad field descriptions.
What’s the best way to handle an expert who uses too much jargon?
Politely interrupt and ask them to explain the term in simpler language, perhaps with an analogy. You might say, “That’s a fascinating point; for our general audience, could you break down what ‘quantum entanglement’ really means?” or “Can you give me a real-world example of that ‘supply chain bottleneck’?”
Should I send my questions to the expert beforehand?
While some reporters prefer this, I generally advise against sending a full list of detailed questions. It can lead to canned answers and less spontaneous, insightful dialogue. Instead, provide a general outline of topics you wish to cover, allowing them to prepare without scripting their responses word-for-word.
What if an expert tries to steer the conversation away from my topic?
Gently but firmly guide them back. You can say, “Thank you for that perspective, but I’d like to bring us back to the specific impact on the local economy we were discussing,” or “While that’s interesting, my focus today is on the legislative aspects.” Be polite but maintain control of the interview’s direction.
How do I ensure I get a good soundbite or quote from an expert?
After they explain a complex idea, ask them to summarize it concisely. You might say, “If you had to distill that down to one sentence for a headline, what would be the most important takeaway?” or “Could you give me a powerful, concise statement that captures the essence of this issue?” This encourages them to provide quotable material.
