Media Angles
Expert commentary for journalists
Learn how to match an expert to a journalist’s question, prepare a verifiable comment and handle attribution without confusing fact and opinion.
Useful expert commentary answers the journalist’s question, shows what the answer rests on, and marks where the expert’s knowledge ends. A job title alone does not establish that fit. Before offering a spokesperson, check the exact question, the available evidence and whether the person can respond within the journalist’s deadline.
Start with the question, not the spokesperson
Ask what the journalist is trying to establish. They may need someone to explain a technical process, interpret a new finding, describe what happens in practice or assess a disputed claim. These are different assignments.
A senior executive may know the company’s decisions but have no basis for interpreting national data. A researcher may understand the data but not know how a particular business operates.
Match the person’s direct work to the narrow question. Check their current role, relevant experience, access to the underlying material and any commercial interest that might affect their view. Disclose a relevant connection rather than leaving it to be discovered later.
If no one can answer within their expertise, say so. An introduction to a better-qualified source can still be useful.
A suitable expert also needs to be available. Confirm the deadline, interview format, attribution and who can clarify technical details afterwards. Do not offer an interview that requires several layers of approval when the reporter needs an answer now.
Give the journalist something they can test
A comment works best when it has a direct answer, a short explanation and an identifiable basis. For a comment about a study, provide the study or the relevant table, its date and the limits of the finding. For a comment about the organisation’s own operations, identify what the spokesperson observed directly and what comes from internal records. Keep a source document or calculation available for follow-up.
Separate three kinds of statement:
| Statement | How to present it |
|---|---|
| Established fact | Give its source, period and relevant definition. |
| Expert interpretation | Explain the reasoning and acknowledge credible alternatives. |
| Prediction or possibility | Label the uncertainty and avoid presenting it as an observed outcome. |
An expert can still be wrong about a checkable fact. Attribution does not replace verification. A measured change in two variables, for example, does not by itself show that one caused the other. If the evidence supports only an association, the comment should say that.
The ABC’s accuracy guidance says reasonable efforts should be made to ensure facts are accurate and presented in context, and that the effort needed depends partly on how material the facts are and the seriousness of their implications. For a high-stakes claim, make the relevant evidence and its context easy to inspect.
Keep facts distinct from judgement when answering follow-up questions. The ABC distinguishes checking facts from checking opinions, while its guidance warns against presenting factual content in a way that materially misleads. If a conclusion depends on an assumption, say what that assumption is; if a figure has a particular period or definition, make that clear alongside it.
Types of Expert Statements and How to Present Them
- Established fact
- Give its source, period and relevant definition.
- Expert interpretation
- Explain the reasoning and acknowledge credible alternatives.
- Prediction or possibility
- Label the uncertainty and avoid presenting it as an observed outcome.
Make the response easy to use
Lead with the answer. Then add the qualification that would change how a reader understands it. Avoid a long company introduction, a slogan or a paragraph that repeats the question. A reporter can request more detail if needed; a precise answer is harder to extract from promotional copy.
When preparing a written comment, ask the expert to check every factual claim and the scope of each conclusion. Confirm their preferred name, role and organisation as they should appear in attribution. If several people contributed to a draft, make sure the named expert has reviewed it and can stand behind it. Do not present a communications team’s interpretation as the expert’s personal finding.
For an interview, brief the expert on the topic and relevant documents, then leave room for the journalist’s questions. Prepare for reasonable challenges, including what the evidence cannot establish. If a question falls outside the expert’s knowledge, a clear limit is more credible than an improvised answer.
How to prepare a verifiable expert comment
- Lead with the direct answerAvoid promotional language or repetition of the question
- Include supporting evidenceAttach study, table, internal record or calculation
- State limitations clearlySpecify what the expert cannot confirm or assumes
- Confirm attribution detailsPreferred name, role and organisation for public use
- Review for accuracy and conflictsEnsure all claims are checked and disclosures made
Handle quotations without claiming editorial control
For a quotation supplied in writing, retain the version the expert approved and record any later correction. For a spoken interview, keep accurate notes or an agreed recording. If a journalist asks to check a technical detail or the wording of a quote, respond to the specific point promptly. Flag a changed number, incorrect title or missing qualifier with the supporting record.
Do not assume the expert can approve the finished article or replace an accurate quotation because a different phrase sounds better for the brand. Newsrooms set their own editorial terms. Clarify any proposed condition before the interview, and let the journalist decide whether to proceed.
If a factual error is identified after publication, point to the specific statement and provide the record that supports a correction. Reuters’ standards say errors should be rectified promptly, clearly and comprehensively. A precise correction request is more useful than a general objection to the tone or emphasis of a story.
For spoken interviews, Reuters advises taking notes and recording where allowed, and cross-checking information wherever possible. Keep a dated note of the wording or figure in question and the material used to check it. This makes it easier to distinguish a genuine factual error from a disagreement about interpretation.
Key principles from journalistic standards bodies
- ABC accuracy guidance
- Reasonable efforts to ensure facts are accurate and presented in context
- Reuters error correction
- Errors should be rectified promptly, clearly and comprehensively
- SMC support for journalists
- Provide experts who can respond within deadlines and with verifiable evidence
Agree interview conditions before speaking
Before an interview, make the practical ground rules explicit: who is speaking, how they may be identified and whether any particular condition has been agreed. Reuters’ standards advise journalists to make ground rules clear with sources and say named sources are preferable in most circumstances. Do not assume that an informal understanding will be shared by everyone involved.
The ABC’s editorial policies say participants should normally be told the general nature of their participation. Assurances about conditions of participation, use of content, confidentiality or anonymity must be honoured except in rare cases justified by the public interest.
If a condition matters to the expert, raise it before the interview and get clear agreement rather than relying on an assumption. The newsroom retains editorial control over what it publishes or broadcasts.
An expert can also ask how a technical point should be clarified after the interview, but should not treat that as approval of the finished story. Keep any agreed arrangements narrow and workable, so the journalist can decide whether they fit the assignment.
A practical handover
A useful response can be sent as a small, complete pack: the expert’s name and relevant credentials; a direct comment or interview availability; the source material behind factual claims; essential limits; and one contact for clarification.
Review it once for accuracy and conflicts of interest.
In this guide
- Matching an expert to the question being askedChoose a spokesperson by the exact question, their direct knowledge, evidence access, interests and availability.
- Preparing a concise evidence-backed commentDraft a short expert comment that answers the question, identifies its evidence and retains the qualification needed for accuracy.
- Separating expert knowledge from speculationLearn to distinguish observations, evidence, interpretation and forecasts in expert commentary, and state the limits of each claim.
- Checking a quotation before approving attributionCheck a prepared expert quote for wording, factual accuracy, context and correct attribution while respecting the journalist’s editorial control.
