Understanding how to conduct an interview is essential if a journalist is to uncover previously unknown facts and produce original news stories.
Welcome to this Media Helping Media (MHM) exercise based on the article ‘Introduction to interviewing‘ which is published on MHM. You are invited to complete the exercise either on your own or with a colleague. Please ensure you read the article above before completing the exercise.
MHM exercises are a chance for those who are new to journalism to learn skills and test what they know against fictional scenarios. The articles on which the exercises are based have been created from the experience of journalists who have shared their knowledge free of charge in order to help others learn the fundamental principles of robust public service journalism.
Below is a scenario, please work through it to test your interviewing skills.
Part 1: The adversarial interview (the developer)
You spot a report on a local website. It reads:
Marcus Thorne, owner of Thorne Fitness, has confirmed he’s bought the an old youth centre in the town. Mr Thorne, a prominent local businessman, described the current building as a “blight and an eyesore” that has been “underused for years.” He says he plans to invest heavily in the site, importing high-tech gym equipment and a luxury sauna from Germany.
Mr Thorne claims the project will boost the local economy by creating 15 new jobs. When asked about how quickly the purchase of the youth centre went through, he suggested that “friends in high places” helped :bypass council bureaucracy:. He was vague regarding when the new gym would open, but suggested it could be late this year or early next. When asked about membership fees he said “quality comes at a price”.
Your task:
The report above leaves several loopholes that a powerful interviewee might use to avoid accountability. Write down five follow-up questions that challenge what has been reported above, and then check your questions against ours suggested questions.
Please do not view our questions before you jot down yours.
Click here to see the MHM suggested questions.
Suggested follow-up questions:
- On transparency: You mentioned “friends in high places” helped the deal move forward. Specifically, which council members or officials are you referring to, and did any money or gifts change hands?
- On public accountability: You described the building as “underused”. What data or occupancy figures are you basing that assessment on?
- On economic impact: Of the 15 jobs created, how many are full-time, and will you prioritise hiring locally?
- On exclusivity: When you say “quality comes at a price”, are you confirming that the facility will be financially inaccessible to the low-income families who previously used this site?
- On procurement: Why was the contract for equipment awarded to a German firm rather than a local British supplier, given your stated goal of “investing in the community”?
Part 2: The sensitive interview (the community)
The following was also reported on the local website:
Sarah Jenkins, a single mother of three and a volunteer co-ordinator, says the closure of the youth centre has “ruined” her community work. Ms Jenkins operated a homework club for local schoolchildren four nights a week. She says it’s the only safe space for local children to study.
She alleges that the local council failed to issue any formal consultation before the sale to Marcus Thorne was finalised. Although a community hall exists two streets away, Ms Jenkins says it’s “not a suitable replacement” and is often “fully booked by other groups”. She expressed fear that without the centre, local anti-social behaviour will rise as children have “nowhere else to go.”
Your task:
This report captures the emotional weight of the story, but it lacks the specific evidence needed to challenge the council or the developer. Write down five follow-up questions and then check your questions against ours.
Please do not view our questions before you jot down yours.
Click here to see the MHM suggested questions.
Suggested follow-up questions:
- On evidence of need: How many children exactly were registered with your homework club, and what happened to them the week the doors closed?
- On consultation: Did you or your fellow volunteers ever receive letters, emails, or see public notices regarding the change of use for the building?
- On resource comparison: Specifically, what facilities does the youth centre have that the nearby community hall lacks?
- On alternatives: Have you approached the council or Mr Thorne about incorporating a community space for local children within the new gym development?
- On impact: You mentioned a fear of rising anti-social behaviour; have there been any specific incidents since the centre closed that verify this concern?
Part 3: The combined analysis
Your task:
Using the information from both reports and the insights gained from your follow-up questions, write a four-paragraph news story.
We have provided a suggested story outline below. Please do not click on the link to reveal it until you have written your story.
Suggested story outline:
The dispute over the sale of the town’s youth centre has intensified, with local volunteers accusing the council of bypassing public consultation to favour a private gym development.
Developer Marcus Thorne defended the Thorne Fitness project saying it was a necessary economic boost that will replace an “underused eyesore” and create 15 new jobs.
But he has faced criticism for suggesting “friends in high places” assisted the acquisition, and for implying that membership fees might not be affordable for local residents by saying “quality comes at a price”.
Community leader Sarah Jenkins argues the closure has displaced a vital homework club, leaving dozens of children without a study space. While the council points to a nearby community hall as an alternative, Ms Jenkins maintains the venue lacks the specialised resources required for her youth programmes.
The issue has raised wider questions regarding the transparency of the sale and whether the town’s social needs are being sacrificed for commercial investment.
Task 4: Self-assessment
Review your work against common editorial ethic:
Click here to see the editorial ethics raised by this story.
- Impartiality: Did you avoid using the subject’s own labels (such as “eyesore” or “scandal”) as your own words?
- Fairness: Did you give the developer a chance to explain the benefits, and the community a chance to explain the loss?
- Accuracy: Did you correctly identify that the opening date and the council’s “friends” remain unverified claims?








