3 ms·
I think your job as a journalist should be to interview experts, not be one.
by pkulak 3y ago
I think your job as a journalist should be to interview experts, not be one.
- sigstoat 3y agothere’s a difference between being an expert and knowing what sorts of questions will sniff out bullshit.
- dylan604 3y agoi think you just described a good journalist vs a not good journalist. one way that typically makes a good journalist (other than natural talent) is time working with experienced editors. since we've pretty much eliminated the editorial role at most publications (i use that word loosely), that avenue is pretty much no longer available.
- dylan604 3y agohow do you validate the interviewee's level of expert, especially when the interviewer is not one themself?
- kasey_junk 3y agoYou cross reference their answers with answers from others in their field. This is in fact something you learn in journalism school.
- dylan604 3y agoIn the days of single source anonymous attribution sources, I think what's accepted in practice varies greatly from the book learning in journo school
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoAsk a reputable college professor from a reputable college. If a MIT professor confirms it, gives a comment about what is this useful for, etc, there's at least a 90% chance the answer will be correct and on point. It's a stupid example, but the easiest person to find.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- reaperducer 3y agoIt's a stupid example, but the easiest person to find. Not a stupid example at all. Many colleges, even small colleges, have systems set up to refer journalists with questions with the right professor. In smaller colleges, it might just be someone inside the college's Communications or PR department. In big universities, it's often a "media bureau" or something similar, with multiple staffers. That's part of the reason why you see so many academics quoted in newspaper articles. They're a good place to start, and can often send you to even better sources.