News Needs Better Expert Interviews: Here’s How

Opinion: The proliferation of online “experts” demands a higher standard for expert interviews in news. Sloppy vetting and lazy questioning undermine public trust. We need to demand more from journalists – or risk drowning in a sea of misinformation. Are we really okay with just anyone with a social media account being presented as a credible source?

The Credentials Conundrum

Too often, I see reporters relying on superficial credentials. A fancy title doesn’t guarantee genuine expertise. Just because someone is a “CEO” or “consultant” doesn’t mean they have a deep understanding of the subject matter. I had a client last year who was presented as a “cybersecurity expert” on a local Atlanta news station. A quick search revealed his only qualification was selling antivirus software door-to-door in Dunwoody. Seriously? We need to go deeper.

The solution? Rigorous vetting. Verify claims. Check publications. Scrutinize affiliations. For example, if interviewing someone about Georgia election law, confirm they’re a member of the State Bar of Georgia and actively practicing in that area. Look for peer-reviewed publications or presentations at reputable conferences. A Reuters investigation found that many so-called election experts lacked any formal training in election administration.

I’m not saying dismiss everyone without a PhD. Real-world experience counts. But that experience needs to be demonstrable and relevant. Ask yourself: Has this person consistently demonstrated expertise in this specific area over time? Can you independently verify their claims? If the answer is no, find someone else. I’ve seen too many reports citing “experts” with obvious biases or conflicts of interest. This isn’t just bad journalism; it’s actively harmful.

The Art of Asking Better Questions

The quality of an interview hinges on the questions asked. Too many reporters rely on leading questions or softball inquiries that elicit predictable responses. A question like, “Do you think this new law will be beneficial?” invites a simple yes or no. That’s lazy. We need questions that encourage experts to share insights, anecdotes, and nuanced perspectives.

Focus on open-ended questions that start with “How,” “Why,” or “Tell me about.” For example, instead of asking “Will this policy reduce crime?” ask “How do you anticipate this policy impacting crime rates in the Vine City neighborhood, and what data informs that prediction?” This forces the expert to provide a detailed answer, backed by evidence. Always push for specifics. If someone makes a claim, ask them to substantiate it with data or examples.

Active listening is essential. Don’t just stick to your pre-prepared script. Pay attention to the expert’s responses and adapt your questions accordingly. If they mention a specific case study, ask them to elaborate. If they express uncertainty, probe further. The goal is to uncover new information and challenge conventional wisdom. It’s about getting to the heart of the matter, not just checking boxes on a list. One time, I interviewed a financial advisor who kept using jargon. I stopped him and said, “Explain that to me like I’m five.” His subsequent answer was far more insightful and understandable.

Accuracy Above All Else

In the rush to publish, accuracy often gets sacrificed. This is unacceptable. Every quote, every statistic, every claim must be rigorously fact-checked. A Pew Research Center report found that even small errors can significantly erode public trust in news organizations. And that trust is already fragile.

Don’t just take the expert’s word for it. Verify their claims with independent sources. If they cite a study, read the study yourself. If they make a factual assertion, cross-reference it with other reliable sources. Use tools like Snopes or PolitiFact to debunk misinformation. For legal matters, consult the official Georgia Code (O.C.G.A.) or rulings from the Fulton County Superior Court. This takes time, yes. But it’s non-negotiable.

I recently saw a news report about a proposed change to zoning laws near the Lindbergh MARTA station. The reporter quoted a “real estate expert” who claimed the change would “decimate property values.” However, a review of the city planning documents and interviews with other developers revealed that the change was actually designed to increase property values by encouraging mixed-use development. The original report was not only inaccurate; it was actively misleading. This highlights the importance of independent verification and diverse sourcing.

Dismissing the “Just Get It Done” Mentality

Some will argue that these standards are unrealistic in today’s fast-paced news environment. They’ll say there isn’t enough time for rigorous vetting and fact-checking. They might even suggest that “good enough” is, well, good enough. I reject this entirely. Speed should never come at the expense of accuracy and integrity. In fact, the speed of modern news demands even greater vigilance.

Yes, it requires more resources. It requires a commitment to training reporters in critical thinking and investigative skills. It requires a willingness to prioritize quality over quantity. But the alternative – a news ecosystem saturated with misinformation and unreliable sources – is simply unacceptable. We’re not just talking about abstract principles here. We’re talking about real-world consequences. Inaccurate reporting can influence elections, damage reputations, and even endanger lives. According to the Associated Press AP News, their commitment to accuracy is paramount, and they have dedicated fact-checking teams.

Consider this case study: A local news outlet ran a story about a new drug being tested at Grady Memorial Hospital. They quoted a “medical expert” who claimed the drug was “completely safe.” However, a subsequent investigation revealed that the expert had financial ties to the pharmaceutical company that manufactured the drug. The report failed to disclose this conflict of interest, and as a result, many people were misled about the drug’s potential risks. The outlet later issued a retraction, but the damage was already done.

We need to shift the culture. We need to reward reporters who prioritize accuracy and hold those who cut corners accountable. We need to create a system where thorough vetting and fact-checking are not seen as luxuries, but as essential components of responsible journalism. Only then can we hope to restore public trust and ensure that expert interviews in news serve their intended purpose: to inform and enlighten, not to mislead and manipulate.

Let’s start demanding more from our news sources. Contact your local news outlets and ask them about their vetting and fact-checking processes. Support independent journalism that prioritizes accuracy and integrity. Together, we can raise the bar for expert interviews and create a more informed and trustworthy news ecosystem.

Let’s not forget that objectivity in news can be a dangerous illusion. It’s crucial to be aware of biases. Actively question the sources and the information presented. Demand transparency and accountability from journalists. Only then can we hope to navigate the complex information landscape of 2026 with confidence and clarity. Now, go find a news story and fact-check it yourself. You might be surprised by what you uncover.

As we consider the future of journalism, it’s also worth exploring how media can give readers hope and context. By focusing on solutions and providing a broader understanding of complex issues, news organizations can play a more positive role in society. It’s a worthwhile pursuit as we look to 2026.

Also, if you are a journalist reading this, you should know that news organizations must innovate by ’26 or face irrelevance. This is the hard truth of the matter.

Don’t just passively consume the news.