Interviewing is a core skill of journalism. Here we look at the main interview formats, what each is designed to achieve, and when to use them.
There are many types of interviews that journalists will carry out during their careers, and each needs different skills in order to obtain the information needed to write a story. Here are a few.
The vox pop
Vox pop means the voice of the people. I first came across this form of interviewing on my first day on my local radio station. I was sent out by the producer of the mid-morning show to gather half a dozen comments from locals about a new development proposal for the waterfront.
The purpose of a vox pop is to record short, sharp reactions from the community about a current event or decision. You simply ask the exact same open-ended question to dozens of people to find a representative mix of views.
The question must be identical each time – not approximately the same, but word for word. If you change the phrasing between interviewees you are no longer measuring the same thing, and any attempt to present the results as a snapshot of public opinion becomes misleading.
A vox pop is not research and should never be presented as such. It is illustrative, not definitive. The journalist’s job is to gather a range of voices that feels honest and representative, not to cherry-pick responses that support a particular view.
The investigative interview
This is the type of interview where your job is to put hard questions to a politician or business leader about a current story. The aim is to uncover facts, expose wrongdoing, or get an official to speak on the record with a response to a situation.
These interviews are often adversarial, but they don’t need to be. Every question should be backed by documents, data, or prior statements, leaving little room for spin. But spin still happens. See: How to handle a media-trained interviewee and When interviewees dodge your questions.
In an investigative interview, you need to know more about the subject than your interviewee expects you to know. The moment they realise you have done your research thoroughly and that you have the figures, the dates, the contradictory statements, the dynamic shifts. Vague answers become harder to sustain when you can respond with specifics.
The analytical interview
Sometime you will be interviewing a specialist. This is usually when a story involves complex data, scientific findings, or legal detail. You will be asking the specialist to explain what is going on in plain, accessible language that your audience – and you – can understand.
This type of interview is collaborative rather than confrontational. The journalist acts on behalf of the audience, asking what a development means for the local community and why it matters.
The challenge here is keeping control of the language. Specialists often default to the vocabulary of their field. Your job is to keep pulling the conversation back to plain English, asking “what does that mean in practice?” and “can you give me an example?” as often as necessary.
An expert who cannot explain something clearly to a non-specialist audience is not yet ready to go on air or to be quoted in print.
The case study interview
This differs from the vox pop because it is a more in-depth conversation with a specific individual who is directly affected by a policy or issue. For example: a single parent struggling with rising energy bills, or a small business owner facing new regulations. The aim is to put a human face on what might otherwise be an abstract statistical story.
This type of interview requires patience and sensitivity. The person is not a public figure. They may be nervous, unused to being interviewed, or still processing a difficult experience. Pushing too hard or moving too fast will close them down. The skill is to create enough trust that they feel able to speak honestly about their situation.
Be careful about how you use what they tell you. A case study interviewee often does not understand what on the record means or how their words might appear once edited. Explain clearly what you are doing, how the material will be used, and give them the opportunity to confirm they are comfortable before you publish or broadcast.
The talking head
This is an interview with a political analyst, former diplomat, retired official, or industry insider who can provide context and informed opinion on why something is happening, or what might happen next. The aim is to offer analysis, perspective, or predictions about a developing story. The focus is on interpretation and insight rather than first-hand facts.
Choose your interviewee carefully. The label expert is used loosely, and not everyone presented as an authority actually has relevant knowledge of the specific issue at hand.
Ask yourself whether this person genuinely knows what they are talking about, whether they have a financial or political interest in the position they are promoting, and whether their view is one among several that your audience deserves to hear.
The two-way
This is an interview between an anchor and a reporter or correspondent from the same news organisation who is covering a story and has first-hand knowledge to share with the audience. I was often interviewed by a news presenter when working as a political correspondent at Westminster. The format acts as a way for the journalist to set out all the facts they have uncovered as a live news update.
A two-way often takes the place of a package and allows the journalist in the field to expand on what has already been reported in the news bulletin. The two-way works best when the correspondent genuinely has something to add, such as context, colour, or breaking news.
It doesn’t work when it becomes an exercise in the reporter simply repeating what the audience has already heard. Anchors should push their correspondents in a two-way just as they would any other interviewee. “What does that mean?” and “What happens next?” are legitimate questions even when you are talking to a colleague.
The doorstep interview
This is when the journalist approaches someone at their home, office, or in a public place. It usually happens if they have previously refused to give a formal interview and have not responded to requests, or when there is breaking news and there hasn’t been time to set up a formal interview. It is a legitimate tool of investigative journalism, but it requires careful judgement.
The purpose of a doorstep is not to ambush someone for the sake of drama. It’s to give a subject who is avoiding scrutiny a final, public opportunity to respond to questions that are in the public interest. If they walk away, that itself is on the record. If they speak, even briefly, that is also on the record.
Know your legal position before you doorstep anyone. In most places you are entitled to approach someone in a public place and ask questions, but there are limits – particularly around issues of privacy and harassment. Doorstepping a private individual who happens to be caught up in a story is a different matter from doorstepping a public official who has been evading accountability for weeks.
The phone and remote interview
Much interviewing now takes place by phone, video call, or messaging rather than face to face. This has practical advantages. It allows journalists to reach people across distances quickly, but it also changes the dynamic in ways that are worth considering. See: Interviewing remotely.
Without physical presence, you lose body language as a source of information. You cannot see hesitation, discomfort, or the glance at a communications adviser sitting just off camera. You also lose some of the social pressure that makes evasion harder to sustain in person.
Remote interviews require the journalist to be more alert to the verbal signals that might otherwise be read visually.
Check your recording setup and connection before the interview begins, not during it. Technical problems at the wrong moment can break the rhythm of a difficult exchange in a way that benefits the interviewee. See: Preparing for an interview.
What all interviews have in common
Whatever the format, every interview involves the same fundamental understanding. The journalist asks, the interviewee answers, and the audience receives information they could not have obtained otherwise.
The type of interview shapes the approach, the tone, and the questions, but it doesn’t change that basic purpose.
Choosing the right type of interview for the story you are covering is part of the journalist’s craft. A vox pop where an investigative interview is needed produces noise rather than accountability.
A confrontational approach where a case study requires empathy will close down the very person whose story you are there to tell. Match the method to the purpose, and you are already ahead.
