Question avoidance is something every journalist faces. Here we look at common tactics, what they mean, and how to handle them.
When interviewees dodge your questions, you need a plan. There are many types of interview that you will carry out during your career as we set out in Types of interviews and how to use them. In this article we are focusing on the investigative interview – the type where a journalist is talking to someone in the public eye about a matter of public importance, and where question avoidance is most likely to occur.
In another piece on this site – How to handle a media-trained interviewee – we looked at how to interview someone who has been media trained. That article is about dealing with interviewees who have been coached to avoid your questions and to push the messages they have been prepared to promote.
This article goes a step further. Here we look at avoidance tactics more broadly – the patterns that appear across many different types of interviewee, trained or otherwise, and what journalists can do when they encounter them.
Recognising the patterns
There are patterns that recur so often across different countries, cultures, and interview formats – recognising them is the first step to dealing with them.
- The non-answer: This is when the interviewee speaks at length but says nothing of substance. They fill the allotted time with words that sound relevant but contain no facts, no figures, and no commitment. It can be hard to spot in the moment because the volume of speech creates the impression of engagement.
- What it means: The interviewee has been coached, or has learnt, to run the clock. A long non-answer feels like cooperation but delivers nothing.
- What to do: Stop them before they finish. “I’ll have to stop you there – you’ve spoken for some time but haven’t addressed the question. Let me put it again.” Then put it again, shorter and more directly than before.
- The topic switch: The interviewee answers a different question to the one you asked. Sometimes this is subtle – they drift from the specific to the general, from the present to the past, or from your concern to one of their choosing. Sometimes they start talking about something else entirely.
- What it means: The actual question is one they cannot or will not answer. The switch is designed to make you chase them onto territory they control.
- What to do: Do not follow. Name what happened: “You’ve moved on to a different topic. My question was about [X]. I’d like you to answer that.” Then wait.
- The appeal to process: “That’s a matter for the inquiry / regulator / courts / review panel.” This sounds reasonable. It sounds as if the interviewee is respecting an ongoing process. Often they are simply hiding behind one.
- What it means: A process exists – real or convenient – and the interviewee has decided that its existence suspends their obligation to say anything in public.
- What to do: Separate the process from the principle. “I understand there’s an inquiry, but you can still tell me whether you think what happened was acceptable. Did you?”
- The conditional answer: “If the figures are correct, then of course we would be concerned.” The interviewee attaches a condition to their answer that lets them avoid committing to anything. If the figures turn out to be disputed, they have said nothing. If they don’t, they have only agreed with what everyone already knows.
- What it means: They want to appear cooperative without actually being so.
- What to do: Remove the condition. “The figures come from your own published accounts. Do you accept them?” If they still hedge, note it: “You’re declining to accept your own organisation’s published data. That’s something our audience will find interesting.”
- The sympathy play: The interviewee shifts from the substantive question to the human dimension – usually theirs. “Do you have any idea how hard my team has worked?” or “I find it deeply hurtful that you’re suggesting…” This is an attempt to move away from facts and towards emotion. It is designed to make the journalist look cruel for pressing on.
- What it means: The facts are indefensible, so the conversation is being moved to a space where feelings, not facts, are the currency.
- What to do: Acknowledge the emotion briefly but return immediately to the substance. “I’m sure that’s genuinely felt. But the question is about [X], and that’s what I need you to address.”
- The false concession: The interviewee appears to agree with you – “Yes, mistakes were made” – but in terms so vague that they have conceded nothing specific and committed to nothing at all. Terms like “mistakes were made”, and “lessons have been learnt” are the signs of this technique.
- What it means: They want to appear accountable without being accountable.
- What to do: Press them. “Who made the mistakes? You or someone else? And what specifically are those lessons?” Do not accept the abstract when the specific is what your audience needs.
- The time-shift: The interviewee concedes that things were bad in the past but insists that everything is now different. “That was before my time”, “We’ve moved on from that”, “The organisation has changed completely.” The past is acknowledged only to be declared irrelevant.
- What it means: They are hoping you will accept the past as settled so the present cannot be examined. Often the present is not as different as they claim.
- What to do: Challenge the claimed change specifically. “You say things have changed. Can you give me a concrete example of what is different now compared to then, and show me the evidence?”
- The jargon wall: Some interviewees – particularly from technical fields, finance, or government – deploy specialist language as a barrier. The answer is delivered in terms the audience cannot follow and the journalist may struggle to unpick in the moment.
- What it means: Complexity is being used deliberately to obscure rather than to inform. If the journalist cannot explain it, neither can the story they are writing.
- What to do: Stop them and demand plain language. “I need to put this to our audience in terms they can understand. Can you say that again without the technical language?” If they cannot, or will not, that is itself telling.
What all these tactics have in common
Each of the avoidance tactics above is designed to make the journalist feel that something has been answered when nothing has. All of them have the same objective, which is to fill time and space without delivering facts.
The journalist’s job is to notice when this is happening and refuse to accept it. That means listening not just to what is being said but to what is not being said. It means asking yourself, after each answer whether the interviewee addressed your question? If the honest answer is no, then your next question is the one you just asked.
The linked article on handling media-trained interviewees covers additional techniques the bridge, the block, the positive reframe, vague authority, the empathy manoeuvre, and the appeal to irrelevance. Some overlap with the tactics above, but together they give a full picture of what a journalist is likely to face in a difficult investigative interview.
None of this requires aggression. It requires preparation, patience, and the willingness to hold your ground. The interviewee may be skilled at avoidance. But you asked the question for a reason. Keep asking it.
