design-interview-strategy

name	design-interview-strategy
description	Use when planning and conducting a journalistic interview to maximize source cooperation and information yield
source	IRE (Investigative Reporters and Editors) interviewing methodology; Biagi "Media/Impact" journalism curriculum; SPJ best practices for source interviews
tags	["journalism","interviewing","sources","reporting"]
related	["apply-visible-note-taking-elicitation"]
verified	true

Design Interview Strategy

Plan and execute a structured journalistic interview that builds trust, extracts accurate information, and generates usable quotes.

Why This Is Best Practice

Adopted by: IRE (Investigative Reporters and Editors), SPJ, Columbia Journalism School, and professional investigative teams at ProPublica, NYT Investigations, and the Washington Post. Impact: Structured pre-interview research reduces interview time by 30–50% and increases the proportion of on-record statements; strategic question ordering increases the likelihood of disclosure by reluctant sources. Why best: Journalism interviews differ from conversations — the reporter has an obligation to accuracy, the source has interests to protect; a deliberate strategy balances both.

Sources: IRE interviewing tipsheets; Biagi "Media/Impact" (2012); SPJ Code of Ethics (2014); Kovach & Rosenstiel "The Elements of Journalism" (2014).

Steps

1. Define interview goals — list the 3–5 specific facts or quotes you need. Distinguish must-have from nice-to-have before scheduling.

2. Research the source exhaustively — review all prior coverage, public records, LinkedIn, court filings, and organizational materials. Never ask questions answerable through public records.

3. Prepare a question hierarchy — sequence: open biographical/context questions → specific factual questions → sensitive or confrontational questions → closing open-ended questions ("Is there anything I should have asked?").

4. Arrange logistics deliberately — in-person interviews yield more than phone; phone more than email. Record with consent (check state laws). Confirm the time, location, and scope in writing.

5. Establish ground rules up front — clarify on-record vs. off-record vs. on-background at the start, not mid-conversation. Define each term explicitly to avoid misunderstanding.

6. Open with rapport-building — start with non-threatening questions the source can answer easily. Silence is a tool; let pauses breathe.

7. Ask one question at a time — compound questions let sources choose which part to answer. Listen for evasions and follow up precisely.

8. Handle reluctant sources — acknowledge their hesitation, explain public interest, and offer partial options (on background, anonymous quote). Never mislead about the story's nature.

9. Verify claims in real time — ask for documentary evidence, names of witnesses, and dates while you have the source. Don't rely solely on memory or single-source claims.

10. Close and confirm — read key facts and quotes back to the source for accuracy confirmation. Provide a callback number; ask if they want to add anything.

Rules

• Never misrepresent yourself or your organization to obtain an interview.
• Get explicit consent before recording; know your jurisdiction's recording laws.
• Honor off-record agreements even when the information is important.
• Do not promise story approval, quote approval, or editorial control to sources.

Common Mistakes

• Asking leading questions — signals the answer you want and contaminates the record.
• Moving to confrontational questions too early — causes sources to shut down before providing context.
• Failing to follow up on evasions — "I'm not sure" and "I don't recall" require a follow-up, not acceptance.
• Over-relying on email interviews — email allows sources to craft lawyered answers; push for live conversation where possible.

When NOT to Use

• When requesting a quick on-the-record confirmation of a known fact (a brief call or email suffices).
• When the source is an expert providing general background (a lighter approach applies).
• When you lack sufficient pre-research to conduct a meaningful conversation (research first).