Expert Interviews: Elevate News or Repeat Errors?

Opinion: In the age of instant information, expert interviews are more critical than ever for delivering trustworthy news. Yet, too many organizations treat them as an afterthought, leading to shallow reporting and missed opportunities. It’s time we raised the bar. Shouldn’t we demand more from our news sources than regurgitated press releases?

Stop Treating Experts Like Sound Bites

For too long, the media has reduced experts to mere sound bites, cherry-picking quotes to fit pre-existing narratives. This practice not only disrespects the expert’s knowledge but also undermines the public’s trust in journalism. A true expert interview should be a deep dive, a genuine attempt to understand complex issues through the lens of someone who has dedicated their life to studying them. I’ve seen it happen firsthand: a reporter calls for a quick quote, barely listens to the nuanced explanation, and then distorts the information to fit a sensational headline. This isn’t just bad journalism; it’s actively harmful.

The alternative? Preparation. Before you even think about dialing the phone, do your homework. Understand the expert’s background, read their publications, and identify the specific areas where their expertise can shed light on the story. I aim for at least 10 targeted questions, designed to elicit thoughtful, in-depth responses. This isn’t about grilling someone; it’s about creating a conversation that uncovers new angles and insights.

Consider this example: a few months ago, I was covering a story about the proposed expansion of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Instead of simply quoting the airport spokesperson, I interviewed Dr. Emily Carter, a professor of urban planning at Georgia Tech, who had written extensively on the socioeconomic impact of airport expansions. Her insights, which challenged the conventional wisdom about job creation and environmental impact, added a critical layer of depth to the story, leading to a much more informed piece. It’s that kind of critical, informed interview that sets apart good journalism from great journalism.

Transcription is Non-Negotiable

In the rush to publish, transcription is often seen as an unnecessary expense. This is a massive mistake. Relying on handwritten notes or memory opens the door to inaccuracies and misinterpretations. A verbatim transcription, on the other hand, provides a permanent record of the interview, ensuring that the expert’s words are presented accurately and in context. This is especially crucial when dealing with complex or controversial topics. If you need news insights for your reporting, this is also helpful.

Some might argue that transcription is too time-consuming and costly. But consider the alternative: a retracted story, a damaged reputation, or even a lawsuit. The cost of accuracy is far less than the cost of negligence. There are several transcription services available, such as Otter.ai, which use AI to provide quick and affordable transcriptions. We’ve been using it at the station for two years, and it’s cut our transcription time by at least 60%.

Here’s what nobody tells you: a good transcription isn’t just about accuracy; it’s also about uncovering hidden gems. As you read through the transcript, you’ll often notice nuances and subtleties that you missed during the initial interview. These details can lead to new lines of inquiry, richer storytelling, and a deeper understanding of the subject matter. I had a client last year who nearly missed a critical piece of information in an interview about the new mixed-use development at the intersection of Northside Drive and Howell Mill Road, but a careful review of the transcript revealed a previously unmentioned environmental concern, leading to a significant shift in the story’s focus.

Speed Matters, But Accuracy Matters More

In the 24/7 news cycle, speed is paramount. But chasing immediacy at the expense of accuracy is a recipe for disaster. While it’s important to publish expert interviews in a timely manner, it’s even more important to ensure that the information is accurate and reliable. This means taking the time to fact-check, verify sources, and get the expert’s approval before publishing.

I understand the pressure to be first. But ask yourself: what’s the point of being first if you’re wrong? A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that misinformation spreads faster and farther than accurate information. This is why it’s so important to prioritize accuracy over speed. I aim to publish expert interviews within 48 hours of the interview, allowing ample time for transcription, fact-checking, and review. But I’m always prepared to delay publication if there are any doubts about the accuracy of the information.

Of course, some might argue that delaying publication gives competitors an advantage. But I believe that readers ultimately value accuracy and reliability over speed. A news organization that consistently delivers accurate and well-researched information will earn the trust of its audience, even if it’s not always the first to break the story. Consider the example of the Associated Press (AP News): while they might not always be the fastest, they are widely respected for their commitment to accuracy and journalistic integrity.

Consent is Key

This should be obvious, but it’s worth repeating: always obtain the expert’s explicit consent before recording the interview. This is not only a matter of ethics but also a legal requirement in many jurisdictions. In Georgia, for example, O.C.G.A. Section 16-11-62 requires the consent of all parties for the recording of conversations. Failing to obtain consent could result in legal penalties and damage your reputation.

Beyond the legal requirements, obtaining consent is simply a matter of respect. Experts are giving you their time and knowledge, and they deserve to know how their words will be used. Be transparent about your intentions, explain how the interview will be conducted, and give them the opportunity to review and approve the final product. This will not only build trust but also ensure that the expert feels comfortable sharing their insights openly and honestly. We ran into this exact issue at my previous firm and after that we always use a consent form (physical or digital) to make sure that our interviewees are aware of their rights.

Here’s a case study: a local news outlet recently published an interview with a prominent Atlanta attorney, without obtaining his consent to record the conversation. The attorney, who had made some controversial statements during the interview, sued the news outlet for invasion of privacy and defamation. The case is still pending in the Fulton County Superior Court, but the news outlet has already suffered significant reputational damage. The lesson? Always get consent. It’s important to be aware of ethical risks for advocates.

The future of news depends on our ability to deliver trustworthy information. By following these guidelines for conducting expert interviews, we can ensure that our reporting is accurate, reliable, and respectful of the experts who share their knowledge with us. It’s time to move beyond sound bites and embrace a more thoughtful and nuanced approach to journalism. Are you ready to take the challenge?

Stop settling for mediocrity in news reporting. Start treating expert interviews with the respect and rigor they deserve. The public deserves nothing less. For more on this, smart world news readers should know this!