Securing incisive commentary from subject matter experts remains a cornerstone of credible news reporting, yet many professionals struggle to consistently elicit truly valuable insights. Recent discussions among top newsroom leaders at the annual Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) conference in Washington D.C. highlighted a growing concern: a significant percentage of expert interviews yield generic soundbites rather than substantive contributions. This trend diminishes the depth and authority of news content, begging the question: how can we consistently conduct expert interviews that genuinely inform and differentiate our reporting?
Key Takeaways
- Thorough pre-interview research, including the expert’s specific publications and prior statements, is critical for framing targeted questions.
- Establishing clear interview objectives and sharing them with the expert beforehand improves the focus and relevance of their responses.
- Employing active listening and follow-up questions during the interview uncovers nuanced perspectives beyond initial prepared statements.
- Focusing on specific examples, case studies, or predictions from experts provides concrete, actionable information for audiences.
- Building long-term relationships with diverse experts creates a reliable network for future, high-quality commentary.
“With the latest news and analysis from our journalists around the world and the unique human stories behind current events, we've got the best of our journalism in one place on the BBC News app.”
Context and Background
The demand for authoritative voices in news has never been higher. With the proliferation of information (and misinformation), audiences increasingly rely on journalists to vet and present credible perspectives. I’ve personally seen this shift over my two decades in journalism. Back in 2010, simply having “a professor” on air was often enough. Today? Our audiences expect more. They want the right professor, the one who can break down complex geopolitical shifts or economic forecasts with clarity and foresight.
A Pew Research Center report published in March 2024 indicated that public trust in news media, while generally low, significantly correlates with the perceived expertise and impartiality of sources cited. This underscores the necessity of not just finding experts, but engaging them effectively. A well-conducted interview doesn’t just fill airtime; it builds trust and enhances the news organization’s reputation. I often tell my younger colleagues, “You’re not just interviewing a person; you’re interviewing a perspective, and that perspective needs to resonate with real-world understanding.”
Implications for News Professionals
The implications of superficial expert commentary are far-reaching. It leads to homogenous reporting, where every outlet offers the same surface-level analysis. This is a missed opportunity to truly inform the public. We saw this vividly during the early stages of the 2024 global economic downturn. Many interviews with economists felt interchangeable, focusing on broad strokes rather than specific policy impacts on, say, local Atlanta businesses or global supply chains. My own experience conducting interviews for a piece on renewable energy investment in Georgia last year highlighted this. Initially, I received very general statements from several energy analysts. It was only after I spent hours researching their specific publications on Georgia’s solar incentives and asking pointed questions about the Georgia Public Service Commission’s recent rulings that I got truly valuable, distinct insights. One expert, Dr. Evelyn Reed from Georgia Tech, provided a detailed breakdown of how the latest net metering adjustments would affect residential installations versus large-scale solar farms in South Georgia, complete with projected investment figures for the next five years. That level of detail transformed the story.
The problem often isn’t the expert; it’s the interviewer’s preparation. Many journalists, pressed for time, rely on generic questions. This produces generic answers. We need to remember that experts are often busy professionals, and a poorly prepared interviewer wastes their time as much as our audience’s.
What’s Next
To elevate the quality of expert interviews, newsrooms must prioritize several key areas. First, invest more time in pre-interview research. This means going beyond a quick bio scan and delving into an expert’s specific research papers, recent public statements, and even their social media commentary (if professionally relevant). Knowing their nuanced positions allows for more targeted, challenging questions. Second, clearly articulate interview objectives to the expert beforehand. A brief email outlining the specific angle and desired takeaways can help them prepare more relevant information. Third, train journalists in advanced interviewing techniques, particularly active listening and the art of the follow-up question. The best insights often emerge from the second or third follow-up, not the initial answer. We should also encourage a diverse pool of experts. Relying on the same handful of voices can lead to echo chambers and limit perspective. Expanding our networks to include voices from various academic institutions, industry sectors, and geographical regions (not just the usual suspects from D.C. or New York) will enrich our reporting significantly. For instance, when covering cybersecurity threats, I make a point of connecting with professionals from the Center for Internet Security (CIS), not just academic researchers. Their practical, real-world insights often provide a different, equally valuable dimension.
Mastering the art of the expert interview isn’t merely about gathering facts; it’s about synthesizing complex information into compelling narratives that resonate with and empower our audiences. It requires diligence, strategy, and a genuine curiosity to unearth deeper truths. For more on how to approach these challenges, consider insights on why 2026 demands deeper insight in news analysis and how to combat news fatigue.
How can I ensure an expert provides specific data rather than general statements?
To elicit specific data, frame your questions to demand it. For example, instead of “What are the economic impacts?”, ask “Can you provide specific percentage changes in regional GDP or employment figures related to [specific event] over the last quarter?” Also, explicitly ask for case studies or examples from their experience.
What is the most common mistake journalists make when conducting expert interviews?
The most common mistake is insufficient preparation. Many journalists fail to research the expert’s specific area of focus, recent publications, or prior public statements, leading to generic questions that yield equally generic answers. This wastes both the expert’s and the audience’s time.
How do I build a strong network of reliable experts for future interviews?
Building a strong network involves consistent effort. Attend industry conferences, connect with academic departments, and engage with professional associations. Always follow up with a thank-you, and make a point to check in periodically, even when you don’t immediately need an interview. A positive, respectful interaction encourages future cooperation.
Should I share my questions with the expert before the interview?
Yes, it’s highly beneficial to share your main interview objectives or a brief outline of topics. This allows the expert to gather relevant data, examples, and prepare thoughtful responses, leading to a more productive and insightful discussion. Avoid sharing the exact script, as spontaneity is still valuable.
What’s the best way to handle an expert who is evasive or overly technical?
If an expert is evasive, rephrase the question more directly or ask for a specific example. For overly technical language, politely interject and ask them to explain it “as if I’m explaining it to a general audience” or to use an analogy. It’s your job to translate for your audience, so don’t be afraid to guide them.
