How to Prepare for a Media Interview
Good news – a journalist wants to speak to you about your marine science!. Once the excitement is over, you might start to feel a sense of unease or panic.
Media interviews aren't exams, and good journalists aren't trying to catch you out. But they do move quickly, they follow their own agenda, and they're writing for an audience that isn't you. Knowing what to expect and doing a little preparation beforehand makes the whole experience significantly more productive and enjoyable.
Before the interview
Know the publication and the journalist. If you don't already know the outlet the story will appear in, ask. Read a few recent pieces to understand the tone, the level of technical detail they use, and who their audience is. This helps you calibrate how you explain your work and what context you need to provide. A story for a general national newspaper requires different framing from one for a specialist marine science publication.
Identify your two or three key messages. Before the call, decide what you most want the reader – not the journalist, the people who will read the journalist’s story – to take away from your research. These key messages should be clear, specific, and jargon-free. Write them down and keep them in front of you during the interview. If the conversation goes in an unexpected direction, these are the points you want to find your way back to.
Make sure you can explain why your work matters. This sounds obvious, but it's one of the things researchers most often struggle with in interviews. You know your work matters, but can you explain why it matters to the reader, in two sentences, and in plain language? Practise this before the call. The question "why should people care about this?" will come up in some form, and a clear, confident answer makes a significant difference to how your work is represented.
Prepare for jargon. Identify the technical terms that are central to your work and think about how to explain them in plain language. Not every technical term needs to be avoided, but if you do need to use one, you need to make sure it is immediately understandable to a non-specialist. For example, "anthropogenic nutrient loading" could become "pollution from human activities like agricultural runoff." Think through these translations in advance rather than trying to improvise them mid-interview.
Anticipate difficult questions. Think about the aspects of your research most likely to be challenged, misunderstood, or sensationalised. Are there findings that could be taken out of context? Are there limitations to your study that a journalist might press you on? Is your topic politically sensitive or contested within your field? Prepare honest, clear answers. You don't need a script. Just think it through so you're not caught off guard.
Know your limits. Decide in advance what you are and aren't comfortable being quoted on. If there are aspects of your research that are genuinely uncertain or topics adjacent to your work that are outside your expertise, it's fine to say so. "That's outside my area" and "I don't know" are legitimate and credible responses. Journalists won’t penalise you for it, and knowing in advance where your limits are means you can state them clearly rather than stumbling into territory you'd rather avoid.
During the interview
Ask for clarification if you need it. If a question isn't clear, ask the journalist to rephrase it. This is completely normal and far better than answering the question you thought they asked.
Use bridging. Bridging is a technique for moving from a question you've been asked to the point you actually want to make. It sounds like: "That's an important point, and what I'd add is..." or "What's really significant here is..." It's not about dodging questions. It's about making sure your key messages land even when the conversation moves in different directions.
Use analogies and concrete examples. Abstract concepts are harder to understand and harder to remember than concrete ones. If you can explain a complex idea through a familiar comparison or a real-world example, do it. Journalists often use the examples you give them directly in the story, which means your framing reaches the reader intact.
Take your time. You don't have to answer instantly. A brief pause to gather your thoughts is completely fine and far better than saying something you'd rather not have quoted. If you need a moment, take it.
If a journalist says something you think is wrong, say so politely. Journalists sometimes misunderstand findings or carry assumptions from earlier in the interview. Correcting a factual error during the call is much easier than dealing with it after publication. Be direct but not defensive: "I want to make sure I'm explaining this clearly – what I found was..."
Don't use AI to write your answers. If you're doing a written interview, answer as if you were speaking in person with the journalist. AI-generated answers can be recognisable, and a journalist who suspects they're reading one may not use your contribution at all.
Ocean-specific considerations
Some topics in ocean science are particularly challenging to communicate in a media context. Fisheries management, deep sea mining, marine protected areas, and climate impacts all sit at the intersection of science, politics, and competing interests. A few things worth keeping in mind:
Be clear about what your research does and doesn't show. Sometimes the temptation in contested areas is either to overclaim or to hedge so heavily that the finding disappears. Be precise about what your data supports and what it doesn't, and be honest about uncertainty.
You can disagree with how your field is being portrayed without disparaging colleagues. If a journalist asks you to comment on another researcher's work, be careful. You can offer your own perspective on the evidence without attacking people. The ocean science community is small, reputations matter, and being kind – even if you are critical – is important.
Know the difference between scientific consensus and your specific findings. A journalist may ask you to comment on the broader picture such as climate change, ocean health, or biodiversity loss, as well as your specific study. Be clear about what you're speaking to from your own research and what you're reflecting as broader scientific understanding.
After the interview
Once the interview is done, the story is in the journalist's hands. In most cases, you won't see it before it's published. This is standard practice for good reason.
Publication timelines vary enormously. Sometimes a story goes live within days. Sometimes it takes months. Sometimes, for reasons beyond the journalist’s control, it doesn't run at all. You can follow up with a journalist you spoke with to see if they have any updates. It is not uncommon for freelance journalists not to be told when their stories are published, so they may not know either.
When the story is published, read it carefully. Most of the time, it will be a fair representation of your work, even if the framing is slightly different from how you'd have put it yourself. Different framing is not the same as inaccuracy. Journalists write for their audience, not for you, and some adjustment is normal and expected.
If something is genuinely wrong, act quickly. Contact the journalist directly and calmly, explaining the specific error and why it matters. Most journalists want to get things right and will correct genuine factual mistakes. Keep your message factual and non-combative. You're pointing out an error, not making an accusation.
Share the story. If the coverage is fair and accurate, share it. Tag the journalist and the publication on social media. It helps get your work in front of new audiences and builds support for good marine science journalism.
If you'd like support preparing for a media interview or developing key messages for your marine science, get in touch.
