Tips for an Interview with an Investigative Reporter?

December 17, 2022 5:25 PM

I have finally landed an off-the-record interview with a highly experienced investigative journalist at a major national news organization. I hope they use my story to crack widespread civil rights violations that impact a vulnerable group. The story is complex and I don’t tell it especially well. How can I excel as an interview subject, and how do investigative journalists do their jobs?

Background and issues:

I’m terrified. This is a very big deal that I’ve doggedly pursued, and I don’t want to f**k it up. I have a Propanolol prescription for times like these, but it barely makes a dent. Part of the reason the case is so upsetting is the victims were relatives as were some of the perpetrators. I am also naturally anxious talking to people in certain circumstances, an issue which has been enormously exacerbated in this situation because I’ve been repeatedly second-guessed (gas lit) on this issue by people who either didn’t want to do their jobs or had something to hide.

To make matters worse, the perpetrators spent several years smearing me to make it less probable that the many felonies they committed (yes, felonies) would be found out. Several unwitting people have repeated those smears as fact without realizing they are all sourcing their information from the same few perpetrators. I have enough supporting materials and potential witnesses to back my allegations, but for obvious reason this situation puts me on the defensive.

To make matters even more difficult, the violations make sense with a little background and a slight change in perspective, which can be addressed with a few links to relevant cases that directly inform this situation. But on their own, they are not always understood.

I don’t have any financial or legal support. I hope that cracking the case may help me get a lawyer. I do have some emotional support including, yes, a therapist, but not a partner, which would be theoretically useful around now.

I have gotten to first base on this story a couple of times before:

• In one case, the journalist wanted me to send all of the supporting materials prior to talking to me, and I immediately choked because I hadn’t yet understood how the smears against me actually helped prove my allegations for me — rather than make me look bad through wilful misdirection meant to distract from other people's wrongdoing, and effectively frame me.
• In the other, I had an extremely professional 60-minute interview. It was clear the journalist could tell that my story was for real, and they had interest, but they worked alone and didn’t have the resources to do the necessary fact-checking. Overall, the interview went okay for the first half. Then I got more self-conscious during the second half — and when that happens I can sometimes go completely blank, without memory of what I’ve just said.

Finally, the story is complicated: If you don’t understand who is who or how they are interconnected it would be easy to get lost. The journalist with this upcoming interview is ideal and oft-recognized for their investigative work. I want to make it as easy as possible for them to do good work with this story — and, ya know, to not scare them away.

So my questions:

1. Should I include a few links that will provide context and save time while confirming the interview time?
2. Should I suggest sending materials while we talk, so they can see what I’m saying as I say it? (I always thought this might be most efficient, as well as help keep me on track, but it might be overwhelming too, or contrary to journalistic practice?)
3. Is it okay to tell my story one participant at a time, from most to least important, so I don’t get lost? When I’ve tried to tell the story in a big picture way, about half-way through I end up exhausted, and emotionally feel like the story should be over when, in fact, there is another 50 percent to go.
4. Can you please explain how investigative journalists work on a big story, generally?
5. What do they need from interview subjects?
6. What’s the process?
7. What might be the easiest way to tell a complex journalistic story?

Also if you have any thoughts on how to be effective and keep calm, I would appreciate them.

Note: Please don’t try to guess the identity of the vulnerable group or give advice based on a guess about the group’s identity. It is not relevant to this question.

posted by anonymous to Law & Government (4 answers total)

I have worked as a journalist.

I think you should consider this a preliminary conversation -- you're pitching them on looking into the story, rather than trying to unload the whole thing. Your goal should be to get them intrigued enough to read the documents you send and schedule a follow-up call. Don't feel like you need to explain every detail -- just enough to let them understand that (a) this is a big story and (b) you have proof. If they are intrigued, they will read the documents you send them/talk to some other people involved and then schedule another call with you; when they're more familiar with the material, you can get into the nitty gritty. But don't pressure yourself to offer all that right away.

-You might consider structuring the conversation like the reporter might write the story. If you look at a big NYT investigation, like say the articles about Harvey Weinstein, you'll see that they typically start with a paragraph or two that lays out, in a big-picture way, what the story is going to be about: Hollywood producer sexually harassing actresses for decades, and tells a small slice of the story, preferably with a couple egregious details. There are, of course, more nuances to the story, more players, more specific offenses, a much longer history of wrongdoing, but we don't get bogged down with that at the start. I would recommend doing something similar -- start with the major takeaway, and don't get derailed by details. (Also, telling a story chronologically is often NOT the best way.)

-I wouldn't necessarily plan to get through the whole thing in this call. You could start with the biggest/most important/clearest example of wrong-doing -- e.g., in the Harvey W. example, summarize the story of two actresses, or whatever. And then mention that you have the accounts of 5 other victims, and evidence that his colleagues were covering up for him, and documents that hint at financial wrongdoing, etc. Remember that you know this stuff well, but your listener is probably hearing it for the first time. If you're overwhelmed/exhausted/lost in the details, then they probably are, too. You don't need to, and probably shouldn't, include every participant during this conversation. "There are other angles to this that involve his abuse of employees, which I'm happy to go into later" / "He's been doing this for decades, and I can tell you the details of what happened in the 80s and 90s later, if you're interested, but now let's stay focussed on the past two years," or whatever.

-Be very clear about what you have proof of, and what that proof consists of. Again, you don't need to go into details, but be clear about what you have: police reports? court documents? screenshots? contact information for other corroborating witnesses?

-Having multiple sources is incredibly important for investigative stories. There's you, presumably -- but who else? Journalists often prefer to have two separate people confirm any given account. Information that you heard, but weren't necessarily party to, counts as hearsay, and typically isn't good enough. But if you've talked to several people from your community, and they're all ready to talk, that's music to a journalist's ears. Personally, I would rather hear "I have spoken to five other actresses he assaulted who are willing to share their stories" than have you go into the details of each assault, for example. The good thing about this is, it's not ONLY on you to tell the whole story. If this works out as you hope, you will be one person out of many building the story together.

-It's probably smart to mention the smears, but not get too sidetracked by them -- they're not the real story. "You might see a tabloid article about me being an alcoholic. Harvey hired a firm to plant some negative stories about me. I can send you corroboration of the fact that he's behind this after we hang up."

-I wouldn't send documents as you talk (that sounds overwhelming) but afterward. Again, you don't need to get bogged down in the details -- just say "he sent abusive texts, I can send you screenshots." The more proof the better.

-Personally, I love getting a few links in advance so I'm not going into a conversation with no context.

-For your own sake, you should probably clarify right off the bat the terms of your conversation. Is it off the record? On background? For attribution?

-Keep a notepad & pen by you during the call. If the reporter asks to see certain documents, or wants more information on a particular aspect of the story, or wants to be connected to a source, note it down. That will make it much easier to follow up afterward.

-Again, think of this as a preliminary overview call, not THE interview. The interview(s) will likely happen later, once the reporter is much more familiar with the material.

These are just some initial thoughts... will add more if more comes to mind!
posted by attentionplease at 6:13 PM on December 17, 2022 [20 favorites]

The story is complex and I don’t tell it especially well

Change that. Write it out yourself, then have someone (or multiple someones) read it and give you feedback. The better you can tell your story, the easier it will be for someone else to tell it.

Should I include a few links that will provide context and save time while confirming the interview time?

I personally would appreciate having links and supporting documentation before interviewing someone, but I suppose that could vary. The best thing to do is ask when you confirm the interview. “Yes, Wednesday at 10:30 works for me. Would you like me to send some information over beforehand?”

Can you please explain how investigative journalists work on a big story, generally?

It’s different for every story, but if you watch the movie Spotlight, that’s not a terrible overview.

What do they need from interview subjects?

Don’t overthink this. They’ll tell you what they need from you.

What might be the easiest way to tell a complex journalistic story?

Honestly? Make a PowerPoint. No more than a dozen slides, two or three bullet points on each slide. PowerPoint kind of sucks, but let the professional writer do the writing. Just get the information out for them. You don’t have to actually send them the PowerPoint, but use this as your notes for what I was talking about above.
posted by kevinbelt at 7:36 PM on December 17, 2022 [1 favorite]

I am not a journalist, but I have done a fair number of investigations, and I suspect that you will benefit most from focusing on sounding credible. That means succinct, straightforward, relatively unemotional, not defensive (if there is a DARVO issue you should mention it briefly, but not get into the weeds about it), honest about any gaps in your knowledge. Prepared notes will help you with this. If the journalist will accept key documents ahead of time to help prep, send some, but don't drown them in paper. Do mention that you have lots more where that came from in the interview, though.

Journalists and lawyers do have some different concerns, but trying to weed out fabulists and embellishers, axe-grinders, the seriously mentally ill, people who feel like they've been done wrong by but haven't according to the law...they both have to manage that difficult task, or, at least, there's a higher barrier to getting them to try to corroborate your story if you sound like such a person. It's unfortunate, but no one has infinite time and resources, everyone has to play probabilities. This doesn't mean you have to be robotic, but you don't want to give them reasons to think you're not even a credible witness of your own story. If they're doing an interview, you already have a foot in the door, though.
posted by praemunire at 9:29 PM on December 17, 2022 [1 favorite]

I think it would be useful to write a timeline of what happened- not a long narrative, but just short bullet points and dates (or roughly when each thing happened) and then highlight the most egregious events. Although I wouldn't want to be sent something *during* an interview, something like that would be useful to see in advance.

Tell the reporter that this is difficult for you to talk about—that's completely understandable. Then just let them ask questions and don't worry about giving a perfect presentation. If you're worried that you won't remember want you've said, record the call for yourself in case you want to listen back, or have the call on Zoom with a transcript running so you can look at it (just check the laws where you and the reporter are- you may or may not have to tell them that you're recording).
posted by pinochiette at 8:55 AM on December 18, 2022 [1 favorite]