Pitching
Part of Expert commentary for journalists
Preparing a concise evidence-backed comment
Draft a short expert comment that answers the question, identifies its evidence and retains the qualification needed for accuracy.
A concise expert comment answers the question first, then gives the reason and the most important limit. Make the evidence easy to identify even when the final quotation is short. Brevity should remove repetition, not the condition that makes the answer accurate.
Draft from the supported finding
Before writing a polished sentence, identify the claim the expert can defend. Record its source, period, population and any definition needed to understand it.
If the comment draws on company records, distinguish them from published research or official statistics. If it expresses professional judgement, make the reasoning visible instead of dressing the judgement as a measured fact.
A useful working structure is:
- Answer:State the point responsive to the journalist’s question.
- Basis:Explain the observation, document or method behind it.
- Boundary:Add the uncertainty or exception that could change the interpretation.
These parts need not become three sentences. They check that a short answer still means what the evidence supports.
Cut without changing the claim
Remove the organisation’s history, praise and repeated framing. Keep the exact measure and comparison when they matter.
A claim about a change over one period should retain that period; a finding about respondents should not become a claim about all Australians. If a figure is rounded, check that the words do not imply more precision than the source provides.
Prefer ordinary language to a string of technical terms. Where a technical term is essential, define it briefly.
Put the strongest supported point near the start so a reporter can see its relevance under deadline. Supply additional detail in a separate note or source document rather than forcing every caveat into one unwieldy quotation.
Check the evidence and attribution
Ask the expert to verify the wording against the underlying material. Check names, role, organisation, dates, units and any figure that may have changed in a revised source.
Where the comment uses an association, avoid saying it proves a cause unless the underlying work can support that conclusion. Where a conclusion is contested, describe it as an interpretation and acknowledge the material uncertainty.
A communications writer can edit for clarity, but the named expert must be able to stand behind the final attributed words. Keep the approved version and the source material together.
If the journalist needs a shorter quote, offer a shorter accurate version; do not assume they will publish the prepared wording unchanged.
Could someone read only the proposed comment and form a materially mistaken view of the evidence? If so, restore the missing condition or narrow the claim before sending it.
