Skip to main content
Editorial Policies

Interviewing

Share

Scope of this guidance note

This guidance note relates to a range of editorial issues that arise when we conduct interviews for news and factual content, including live interviewing, pre-recorded standalone interviews or interviews for inclusion in edited programs. The guidance here is also useful to consider for more discursive ‘life history’ style interviews, and when preparing questions for panel discussions. 

It does not cover: 

Key editorial standards

The key editorial standards relevant to this guidance note are set out below. Other editorial standards may also be relevant. 

1 Independence, Integrity and responsibility 

1.1  Maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC. 

1.2  Exercise ABC editorial control over the content the ABC broadcasts or publishes. 

1.3  Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests. 

… 

2 Accuracy 

2.1  Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context. 

2.2  ‘Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.’ 

… 

5 Fair and honest dealing 

5.1  Participants in ABC content should normally be informed of the general nature of their participation. 

5.2  A refusal to participate will not be overridden without good cause. 

5.3  Where allegations are made about a person or organisation, make reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide a fair opportunity to respond. 

… 

5.7  Assurances given in relation to conditions of participation, use of content, confidentiality or anonymity must be honoured except in rare cases where justified in the public interest. 

Introduction

At the ABC, the interview is one of the most important tools in factual content making. 

It’s the key moment of connection between the journalist or content maker and the talent—where our core editorial standards are put into practice and most visible.  

It is where we tease out matters of accuracy, demonstrate our objectivity and impartiality and commitment to a diversity of perspectives. It is where we exhibit our commitment to treating people fairly, providing an opportunity to respond to allegations, while striking the balance between showing respect and asking the tough questions. 

And where once a news interview might yield just a short grab or two for radio or television, they are now much more likely to be published or broadcast in part or in full on one of our many rolling news platforms or on social media sites. That means the overall structure of an interview is often important, and there is a need to ensure they are conducted in a coherent, comprehensive, fair and impartial manner, especially when it comes to tone and content of questions. As a standalone piece of content, an interview needs to satisfy accuracy standards, which means thinking carefully about the amount of context that needs to be included in questions, how those questions are framed, etc. 

The purpose of this interview guidance is to support content makers in conducting interviews that not only meet the ABC’s editorial standards but also serve their journalistic purpose effectively. Whether you're seeking to inform, investigate, explore complex issues, or simply allow someone to share their story, this document aims to help you plan and deliver interviews that are purposeful, ethically sound, and editorially rigorous. 

This guidance note is designed to move chronologically through the process of preparing for an interview, conducting an interview and broadcasting or publishing an interview, with advice along every step of the way on how to ensure compliance with editorial policies. 

And finally, remember that the guidance provided here applies equally to interviews no matter how they are conducted, or regardless of the platform they will be published on. In all cases, the fundamentals remain the same. 

Getting the interview

Be transparent.

Interviewees are entitled to know what you want to talk to them about and how the interview will be used, so it is crucial to be transparent and honest.

People are not entitled to be given a list of questions – interviews are live events that can and do change and shift focus as they take place, and asking tough unexpected questions can often be an important part of the process. 

On the other hand, it is hard to expect someone to respond sensibly to an issue if they don’t know you plan to raise it. As a general rule, people should know broadly what you are going to raise with them.  

With more ‘experienced’ interviewees (like politicians, union leaders, interest groups or senior business or industry figures) it is reasonable to expect them to be across their area of responsibility and capable of handling relevant questions without the need for extensive advance warning. 

Another area for transparency is in the way you intend to use an interview. Some people may be happy to share quite intimate stories about their experiences for broadcast immediately after the event, but think more carefully about their decision if they know it will be accessible indefinitely, and found by searching online for their name in years to come. These issues are best canvassed in advance, particularly where the interview is not raising accusations or wrongdoing or matters of public importance, but asking people to share their personal stories. Talking through an interview in advance can help avoid unnecessary distress, for example when working with vulnerable people or discussing sensitive topics.   

Finally, be sure to brief interviewees on any particular requirements to take care with what they say. On some sensitive, controversial or legally-fraught topics it makes sense to remind people not to use coarse language, to maintain basic respect (especially in panel discussions) and to steer clear of defamatory or legally risky comments. 

Do your research.

Every interview benefits from as much preparation and research as possible in the circumstances. It is important to get across the details before you begin. 

This is particularly important with live-to-air interviews, where it is not possible to fact-check claims made during an interview on the spot (more on this later) but it also ensures questions are probing and productive. 

A question or line of questioning based on inaccurate or incomplete information can derail an interview very quickly, or not meet editorial standards if material which is inaccurate or lacks context is broadcast or published. It is also crucial to research not just the topic you are discussing, but the talent. Are they who they say they are? How are they viewed by the sector or organisation they represent? What are their previous published views on the topic? 

Of course, preparation is sometimes not possible at all. Where talent pops up out of the blue (for example, when local radio or continuous news presenters are dealing live to air with a breaking issue) the key responsibility of the interviewer is to be probing, to question assertions, to ask for the source of any claims and to consider a follow up interview for the audience to ensure sufficient efforts are made to ensure accuracy and a diversity of perspectives. 

Trauma situations.

 ABC content makers, particularly when covering news, will often find themselves dealing with people who have experienced or witnessed trauma. 

Great sensitivity is required in such situations. A balance needs to be struck between the need to bring to our audiences the reality of newsworthy events, while doing everything we can not to add to the trauma for those involved or exploit their vulnerability. The best approach is to be aware of the issue, listen carefully to those we are approaching, ensure they understand how and where any interview will be used and are in a position to provide informed consent. 

For more on this, see the dealing with trauma and survivors of trauma guidance note. 

Negotiating conditions for the interview.

It is essential to the editorial integrity of ABC content that we retain full editorial control over the material we broadcast or publish.  

Every decision about what goes into an interview or is left out of an interview should be based on our own assessments of editorial value, not on the demands or expectations of others. This does not mean that we can’t ever negotiate with talent, but don’t agree to an arrangement that stops you asking questions at the centre of the subject or issue you principally want to discuss, or because the question is embarrassing but still newsworthy. Be aware that the audience may expect certain questions to be asked in some circumstances (perhaps because they are in the news) and you could be damaging your own reputation or the perception of your impartiality if they are not asked. Be prepared to cancel interviews if the constraints are too great.  

You should only offer not to ask questions on a particular topic if you have already independently decided that you do not want to canvas that issue and you do not believe your audience has an interest in it. For example, if you approach a government minister for an interview about a controversial policy decision they have just announced, they may well indicate that they are only prepared to do the interview on that topic and not if any other questions (e.g. about leadership issues) are asked. If you have no desire or intention to ask about anything other than the policy topic of your story then there is no problem in telling them that, as it is your decision. If, however, you do want or need to ask about a leadership issue then you should indicate that you may well need to ask such a question, but they are free to decline to answer. 

A handy way to think of this is that if it would appear a strange omission for us to interview a Minister and not ask about an obvious running issue, then we should not agree to such a restriction. 

In other words, agreements should not be struck to avoid controversial or sensitive topics. Interviewees always have the right to decline to answer certain questions, but not to insist that we do not ask them. 

When the talent wants to record the interview.

This is an increasingly common request, particularly when politicians bring their media advisers along to interviews and want their own record. 

There is no reason to object or oppose such a request, but unless the interview is live-to-air, it is important to remind interviewees and their advisers that the interview can and usually will be edited prior to broadcast or publication, and so any contemporaneous recordings should only be used as a form of record-keeping and not broadcast or published elsewhere.  

Be aware that any publication of ABC editorial content to non-ABC platforms may constitute unauthorised use of ABC material and be subject to takedown requests or legal action. 

Getting the right panel.

 If you are preparing a panel discussion or debate involving more than one interview, it is also important to ensure you get an appropriate range of participants to ensure a good discussion. 

This doesn’t just mean an appropriate diversity of perspectives but ensuring as much as possible that there isn’t a mismatch of skills and experience which would lead one voice to dominate the discussion. It’s also important to get the right person for the interview subject you want to discuss, aiming for the principle relevant perspectives to be expressed. Particularly with contentious issues it is usually not a good idea to ask people to comment on subject for which they have little or no expertise or experience, or to ask general questions that they are not qualified to answer.  

This can often be handled through the way the discussion is chaired and moderated, but good research and preparation will also help. 

The objectivity and impartiality guidance can be found here.

When an interview is declined

 People can decline interviews for all sorts of reasons. 

If someone declines an interview with the ABC, and if they are considered a relevant perspective to the story, it is important to acknowledge that in our content as a matter of transparency for our audience. It is equally important to characterise the reasons for their decision accurately and fairly. If someone says they are ‘unavailable’ or doesn’t respond to an interview request, simply state that. Use ‘decline’ instead of ‘refuse’ for a more neutral tone, unless that person is clearly rejecting questions. 

Conducting the interview

It is important to make sure the people you interview know that not everything they say to you will be broadcast or published explain the process, particularly to those who may not be experienced in dealing with the media. Ensuring they understand how their words may be used — and striving to maintain the integrity of their message — helps build trust and encourages more open and thoughtful contributions. Fair dealing is about letting contributors know how their contributions will be used. 

The appropriate tone and style to adopt will depend on the circumstances. 

For example, some interviews are designed to illuminate complex issues, others are done to gather first-hand impressions of breaking events, while some interviews are specifically organised to put hard-hitting and difficult questions to people who do not want to answer them. 

And of course, interviews with politicians can fall into a category all of their own, with the interviewer seeking genuine answers to awkward questions while the politician is determined to answer questions which have not been asked, or shift the discussion towards a series of pre-arranged talking points. 

Each situation will require its own approach, but across all of those situations some general rules apply: 

  • Make sure the questions are fair and accurate, and put the key contested points to the interviewee 
  • Interruptions to answers are appropriate at times, usually when an interview is drifting off topic, an answer has gone on too long, or a question is being ignored. When interrupting, be firm but polite – as the interviewer, you are in charge of the interview and need to control its shape and direction 
  • If you do need to interrupt, be consistent. Don’t badger one view and mollycoddle another. If one talent in a piece of content is being held to account, all talent needs to be held to the same standard; though also remember that balance follows the weight of evidence, and if one interviewee is making more extraordinary claims than others, those claims may require greater scrutiny 
  • Questions in some cases can and should be challenging when they need to be. On a contentious or controversial issue, it is often necessary to take a ‘devil’s advocate’ approach as an interviewer, and put the views of the opposing side of the issue for the interviewee to respond to. 
  • By the same token, not all interviews need to be combative and confrontational. Gentle probing and a focus on substance can often be equally effective in gaining honest and informative answers. 
  • If you have regular guests that you interview again and again, always take care to make sure that the rapport and friendliness you develop doesn’t spill over into an appearance of ABC endorsement of or advocacy for that guest’s affiliations or views. 
  • In cases where allegations are being put to a person or organisation, reasonable efforts should be made to treat the person who is the subject of the allegation fairly and provide sufficient opportunity to respond. See the Fair opportunity to respond guidance for more. 
  • Questions should be presented without pre-judgement and the tone in which they are put should not reflect any bias. Objectivity and impartiality are key in the newsgathering process as much as in the final product.  

Interviewing children

The ABC has specific guidance dealing with children and young people, providing advice on their involvement in both broadcast content and online content. This guidance flows from our editorial standards in relation to children and young people, which should be referred to whenever you are interviewing children. 

In the context of interviewing children, the main points to keep in mind are the need to consider obtaining parental or guardian approval before interviewing anyone under 18, and the more general need to consider their welfare and the impact on them of their involvement in ABC content. 

It is not always necessary to obtain permission from a parent or guardian to interview a child, but in most cases you should consider obtaining permission the norm. 

The exceptions would include: 

  • Trivial or inconsequential ‘vox pop’ style grabs where there is little risk of harm and the child is in a public location where it is reasonable to anticipate such interactions. An example of this might be stopping and interviewing people in a busy shopping street about what they think of Christmas. 
  • Situations where it is neither practical nor desirable to obtain such approvals, given the nature of the story. An example of this might be an interview with a ward of the state alleging negligence or abuse by the very agent of the state they have been put in the care of. 

In such exceptional circumstances the request must be upwardly referred the issue and also remember that the younger the child, the more likely it is that parental approval and other measures to minimise harm would be required. Seeking parental approval should never be avoided simply to save time or avoid inconvenience. 

Finally, consider whether it is necessary to use a child’s surname when interviewing them. For example, a specific profile of a specific child in the public eye would naturally provide their full name, and other general interest programming may have its own circumstances where full identification is necessary or desirable.  

Fact-checking on the run

This guidance note has already stressed the importance of research when preparing for an interview. The better briefed the content maker is, the more they will be able to challenge or correct any inaccurate information being put forward by the talent. 

There may be cases where people assert facts in interviews which may, on investigation, prove to be inaccurate. As an interviewer, you should always be alert to any facts thrown about in interviews which are material to the issue being discussed and significant in terms of their likely impact. For example, if an interviewee is talking about the need for a crackdown on crime, any mention of alarming crime statistics would be crucial to the argument and merit checking or challenging. 

If the interview has been pre-recorded for later use, then there are simple opportunities for the facts to be independently verified. 

However, if the interview is live-to-air, there are two simple steps to keep in mind if facts that you are unfamiliar with are being thrown around in an interview: 

  1. 1.Listen. It is easy to be distracted during an interview, preparing for your next question, thinking ahead to next topics, etc. So focus on listening carefully to what is being said in each and every answer. It will not only prompt you to challenge any facts being put forward, but it will make for a more interesting and engaged conversation for the audience. 
  2. 2.Challenge. Even if you are not sure if a fact is right or wrong, anything that sounds questionable or surprising can and should be challenged wherever possible. Simple questions such as Is that really the case? – it sounds surprising or Where does that figure come from? or even I wouldn’t have thought that was true can signal to the live audience that you are taking a common sense approach to questioning and challenging important information. If a fact is wrong, and you are certain of that, then you should be picking up and correcting that on the provision that it doesn’t entirely derail the interview. 

Editing the interview

Transparency is the key in the editing process. It is a common complaint that a detailed and nuanced comment will be diminished by the time it is edited for use, and so it is imperative that the overall view of the talent is conveyed accurately to the greatest possible extent.  

When you do come to edit an interview, take care to ensure that, as far as possible, you are accurately capturing the overall view of the talent and the message they are trying to convey on the key issues being discussed. If someone does have a complex and detailed response on a controversial matter it is not essential to carry the whole answer, but it should also not be altered that it misrepresents them or compromises the integrity of the story.  

It is important to convey the talent’s overall view accurately. Inaccuracy can also arise through the omission of information or when material is presented out of context, where the result can materially mislead the audience. For example, if someone says “I am opposed to the tax cuts proposed by the Government, but only because they don’t go far enough”, to simply quote them as being opposed to the tax cuts would clearly be misleading. 

Sharing the interview

With interviews that canvas complex or technical matters, where accuracy can be a major concern, it is sometimes necessary to check the content of an interview with a third party prior to broadcast or publication. This can be the case, for example, where sensitive operational matters relating to national security are involved, and checks need to be made to avoid threats to community safety or security. 

But that aside, it is generally advisable to avoid providing completed interviews to others before those interviews have been broadcast or published. 

Apart from affording a privilege to one person that is not available to others, it can lead to disputes between talent who are concerned that their detailed, frank views have been provided to others before they have even been broadcast. 

When issues are raised in interviews that require a response from someone else, the material issues should be shared rather than the entire interview. 

When interviewees change their minds

There will be occasions when the person you have interviewed tries to withdraw permission for the use of part or all of a completed interview. They may tell you they have changed their mind, or they have got cold feet, or they have spoken to a lawyer who has advised them against speaking out, or they may simply insist that they are withdrawing permission for the interview to air without explanation. 

The first and most important thing to keep in mind is that, provided the interview was provided freely to us and the person being interviewed was aware of how it was to be used, no further ‘permission’ to run it is required and the only party with the power to decide whether it should run or not is the ABC. The decision is ours to make, not the talent’s. 

Having said that, when someone makes such a request or demand, we do have a decision to make. Do we press on regardless or agree to their request. In making that decision, it is important to differentiate between different kinds of interviews and circumstances. 

Each request will of course be treated on its merits and upward referral is strongly advised when such requests are received, but here are some indications of when such a request might be more likely or less likely to be considered: 

Less likely:

  • If the interview is with someone accused of significant misbehaviour or wrongdoing, and they simply decide they no longer want to be quoted 
  • If someone in a position of power or responsibility has made a concession or admission and now wishes they hadn’t 
  • If a politician or similar public figure is unhappy with how the interview proceeded or what questions were asked 
  • If someone agreed to an interview but then later found out that someone else they disliked was also being interviewed for the same content 

 More likely:

  • If a vulnerable person (crime victim, witness to tragedy, person suffering from illness, persecution or other trauma) voluntarily comes forward to tell their story and then later regrets it or is further traumatised by it 
  • If a whistleblower or someone exposing corruption or wrongdoing changes their mind and now insists they were wrong and/or will no longer stand by their allegations 
  • If someone claims their interview contained serious inaccuracies or legally defamatory information 
  • If someone claims that, on reflection, the information disclosed in their interview might lead to a real and significant risk to individual life or to public safety or security (and the ABC is able to independently verify such a risk). 

In each case, the ABC would take its own independent advice (including legal advice where necessary) before deciding what, if any, action to take. 

Status of guidance note

This guidance note, authorised by the Managing Director, is provided to assist interpretation of the Editorial Policies to which the guidance note relates. The Editorial Policies contain the standards enforceable under the ABC’s internal management processes and under the ABC’s complaints-handling procedures. 

It is expected the advice contained in guidance notes will normally be followed. In a given situation there may be good reasons to depart from the advice. This is permissible so long as the standards of the Editorial Policies are met. In such situations, the matter should be referred upwards. Any mandatory referrals specified in guidance notes must be complied with. 

Issued: 1 August 2017, Revised: 21 May 2025

Share
Back to top

Footer