Journalist Interview Questions

I apply a quick mental framework before committing time to a story. The first question is whether it is genuinely new: has this been reported before, and if so, what do I know that changes the picture? The second is impact: who is affected and how significantly? The third is audience relevance: does this matter to the specific readers or viewers of this outlet, not just to journalists? A story can be important without being right for a particular publication. Once I decide to pursue it, I do a fast source audit: can I get more than one independent source to confirm the core claim before I write a word? If the answer is no, I either keep digging or hold the story. This filter has saved me from publishing things that turned out to be wrong, and it has also helped me recognise when a story needs more than one day's work before it is ready.

Speed and accuracy are not opposites, but they do require discipline. When I am under deadline I work through a clear hierarchy: primary documents first, then on-record statements from official sources, then named sources with direct knowledge, and finally named sources with secondhand knowledge. I never quote anonymous sources as the sole basis for a contested claim. If I cannot verify a claim to that standard before deadline, I either leave it out or write around it with appropriate attribution: "according to a document seen by [publication]" is far safer than treating a single tip as established fact. I also have a personal rule about social media: I never treat a screenshot or an unverified post as sourced material regardless of how widely it is circulating. If I am close to deadline and still have an unresolved factual question, I phone the relevant party directly rather than emailing and hoping for a fast reply.

A good pitch answers three questions in under sixty seconds: what is the story, why does it matter now, and why am I the right person to report it? I structure my pitches in writing as a single paragraph with a suggested headline and a brief note on the sources I already have. The headline matters because it forces me to articulate the story precisely rather than pitching a vague topic. I always flag what I have already confirmed before pitching, because an editor's first concern is whether the story is real or just a hunch. I also include a note on any competitive risk: if another publication is likely working on the same story, that changes the timeline. After pitching I give the editor a clear timeline for delivery so they can plan around it. If the pitch is rejected I ask for a brief explanation, not to argue, but because understanding why helps me pitch better next time.

I have always written for digital-first publication, so I think about SEO implications, headline structure, and article length as part of the writing process rather than as afterthoughts. I have also trained myself to record usable audio and video on a smartphone for supplementary content: not broadcast quality, but good enough for social and web embeds. On a recent investigation I produced a data visualisation using Datawrapper that made the statistical findings accessible to a general audience in a way that a text summary alone could not achieve. I have also built a presence on social media as a reporting tool: I use it to identify sources, monitor developing stories, and verify claims by checking multiple accounts against each other. I find that digital skills amplify good reporting but do not replace it: the most viral content I have produced has always been rooted in solid original reporting.

I spent four months on a public procurement investigation at a regional outlet. The initial tip was that a local authority had awarded contracts without proper tender processes, but obtaining the documentary evidence took three separate Freedom of Information requests, two of which came back partially redacted. I kept going because each small piece of information confirmed the outline of the story even when it did not give me what I needed to publish. I also developed a source inside the council who could not speak on the record but helped me understand which documents to request and where to look. The story eventually ran as a three-part series and led to a formal audit. What sustained me was treating each small piece of progress as its own milestone and keeping a detailed case file so nothing was lost between sessions. I also accepted early on that the story would run when it was ready, not on my preferred timeline.

I was asked to write about a family whose child had died in circumstances that raised questions about local authority care provision. The family wanted the story told but had not fully thought through the public nature of the coverage or the possibility that court documents would become public later. I spent time before any interview explaining exactly what the process involved: what might be published, what it might feel like to see it in print, and what control they would and would not have. I offered to show them quotes before publication for accuracy only, not for approval. I also consulted our editor about the appropriate level of detail given that the child could not consent to the coverage. The story ran and was handled sensitively, but I would have pulled it if the family had changed their minds at any point. Informed consent in sensitive reporting is not a formality.

I was reporting on what appeared to be a clear case of workplace discrimination based on a detailed and credible initial account from a source. After interviewing the employer and reviewing the documents they provided, the picture became considerably more complex: there were performance records and HR correspondence that contradicted key parts of my source's account. Rather than publishing the original angle and waiting to be corrected, I went back to my source with the new information and gave them the opportunity to respond. They acknowledged that some of their characterisation had been selective. I rewrote the story to reflect what the evidence actually showed: a contested workplace dispute rather than clear-cut discrimination. It was a less dramatic story but a more accurate one. I also wrote a note to myself about the source's reliability for future reference.

I am comfortable working with datasets in Excel and Google Sheets for basic analysis: sorting, filtering, pivot tables, and percentage change calculations. For larger or more complex datasets I use OpenRefine to clean the data before analysis, which has saved me from publishing errors that came from messy source data. I have also used Freedom of Information requests strategically to obtain data that was not publicly available, including spending records and planning application logs. On a local government story last year I obtained a five-year dataset of planning decisions, cleaned it in OpenRefine, and used pivot tables to identify that approval rates for applications from certain developers were materially higher than the borough average. That analysis became the quantitative backbone of a story that would otherwise have relied on anecdote. I also double-check all my maths with a colleague before publication.

I treat FOI as a reporting tool, not a last resort. Before submitting a request I spend time understanding what information a public body is likely to hold, because a vague request gets a vague response or a blanket refusal on cost grounds. I draft requests in plain language, specify the date range and format I need, and include a reference to the specific legislation where relevant. I keep a tracking spreadsheet of all open requests with their statutory deadlines so I never miss a follow-up. When a response is refused I always review the exemptions cited to assess whether an internal review or Information Commissioner appeal is worth pursuing: about a third of my appeals have resulted in disclosure of additional information. I also share FOI templates and successful requests with colleagues because effective FOI practice is a newsroom resource, not a personal advantage.

Source protection is a professional obligation, not just a courtesy. For sources who face genuine risk I use Signal for communication and keep no written record of their identity in any system accessible to others. I also advise sources on their own operational security, because their account of how they used their work phone or email may be more important than what I do with the information. For sensitive documents I use encrypted storage and avoid syncing them to cloud services connected to my main email. When I need to share documents with an editor I use a secure file transfer rather than email attachment. I have also thought through what I would and would not say if subpoenaed: this is not a hypothetical in certain types of investigative work. I am familiar with the Journalists' Privilege provisions and the relevant domestic case law, and I have discussed these with an editor before reporting in contexts where source exposure was a realistic risk.