Should Media Interviewees See the Questions in Advance?

Why I Break with Media Tradition - And What It Means for Better Conversations

For decades, traditional journalism has held fast to an unwritten rule: never share interview questions beforehand.  The rationale is familiar - to preserve spontaneity, protect editorial independence, and prevent over-rehearsed answers.

When I media train people I always counsel the candidate to do their homework and prepare thoughts and answers for all possible questions from the simplest to the most controversial ahead of a media interview – so they are fully prepared.     

But in my weekly ‘Word On Health’ radio report and monthly podcast, I’ve always taken a different approach.

I do let my interviewees know, in broad strokes, what we’ll be exploring. I outline the questions, themes, topic areas, and the general direction of the conversation - while making it clear that I may ask additional questions based on their responses or emerging insights.

This isn’t a softening of journalistic standards. It’s a conscious choice rooted in the nature of health communication - and the responsibility that comes with it.

Here’s a deeper look at the pros and cons of my approach, and why breaking this old media tradition often leads to better, more meaningful interviews.

The Benefits of Sharing Topics in Advance

1. It reduces anxiety and builds trust

Many of my interviewees aren’t celebrities or seasoned media performers. They’re health experts, clinicians, researchers, and – crucially - people with lived experience of a condition. Allowing them to know the questions and understand the themes beforehand reduces nerves and helps them feel respected, prepared, and in control. A relaxed guest almost always gives a better interview.

2. It improves accuracy and quality of information

Health is a detail-sensitive subject. Misquoting statistics, confusing terminology, or overlooking nuance can create confusion or, worse, misinformation. By signalling what we’ll cover in advance, interviewees can:

• bring the right facts

• clarify complex issues

• prepare examples or case studies

• check guidance or refer to up-to-date research

This leads to clearer, safer, more helpful public information.

3. It supports vulnerable voices

When speaking to people sharing personal or emotional stories, surprises can feel intrusive. Giving them a sense of what to expect:

• reduces the risk of triggering distress

• allows them to set boundaries

• encourages deeper, more thoughtful conversation

This aligns with the ethos of Word on Health: empathy, accuracy, and public service.

4. It still allows for spontaneity

My proviso is always clear: “I may ask additional questions that arise naturally during the conversation.”

This keeps the dialogue alive and authentic while still honouring preparedness. The best insights often come from these unscripted moments - but they arise more readily when the interviewee feels safe, not ambushed.

The Potential Downsides - And How I Mitigate Them

1. The risk of over-rehearsed answers

If guests, or their media officers, script their responses, authenticity can dip and the responses can sound wooden or formulaic – many people script and then don’t read what they’ve written out loud, recorded it, listened back and edited then their script for vocal reproduction accordingly – the spoken word and the written word are different.

I always seek to pre interview the spokesperson just ahead of the interview, so I gain an inkling of their personality, if in the course of an interview their responses sounds like they are reading it or regurgitating language that seems out of place to them, I can stop the interview (I always pre-record) and encourage the speaker to use the script loosely and keep the tone conversational, which gently nudges interviewees away from polished soundbites in future and stay true to who they are.

2. Losing the element of surprise

Some argue that spontaneous questions reveal more genuine reactions. But in health journalism, “gotcha” moments rarely serve the audience. Accuracy, clarity, and compassion matter more than catching someone off guard.

3. It requires more work from the interviewer

To keep the conversation fresh, I must:

• listen intently

• follow up intelligently

• adapt the direction of questions

• respond fluidly to unexpected answers

• 
  

Sharing questions and themes in advance doesn’t reduce the skill required -  if anything, it increases the level of real-time curiosity and analytical listening needed.

4. A small risk to editorial independence

A guest might attempt to steer the conversation or avoid certain areas if they know the general shape of the interview. Clear boundaries prevent this:

“These are the areas we’ll cover, but I will follow up with whatever is necessary for clarity and completeness and I will edit what you are going to say to fit our format.”

This ensures transparency without giving control away.

So, is this the future of interviews?

Not necessarily for all journalism - but for health communication, especially, but not exclusively, in broadcast, patient voices, and expert-driven discussions, it makes compelling sense.

My approach:

• reduces anxiety

• improves factual accuracy

• strengthens trust

• supports vulnerable contributors

• still encourages natural, spontaneous conversation

In short, it helps deliver the kind of interviews that serve listeners best - informed, compassionate, and grounded in real human experience.

Final Thoughts

Breaking with tradition isn’t about making life easier for the guest - it’s about making information clearer, more trustworthy, more human and impactful for the audience. If that means sharing the direction of a media interview ahead of time, while keeping space for curiosity and unexpected insights, then I believe it’s a tradition worth rethinking.