How Can Doctors and Healthcare Experts Get Quoted in Newspapers and Magazines?
By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
Doctors and healthcare professionals have something that many other prospective media experts spend years trying to establish: immediate, independently verifiable credibility.
A journalist can normally establish relatively quickly whether somebody is a qualified doctor, what their professional background is, where they have worked and what their relevant specialism appears to be. If that person has already contributed to reputable media coverage, the journalist can also see how they have communicated publicly before.
That gives healthcare experts an enormous advantage.
In my experience, health is one of the strongest areas of media demand for expert commentary. Newspapers, magazines and online publications constantly need credible people who can help readers understand medical research, symptoms, seasonal illnesses, public-health developments, surgery, mental health, lifestyle questions and the enormous volume of health information circulating online.
The surprising difficulty for journalists is often not finding somebody with an opinion. It is finding an appropriately qualified person who can respond quickly, explain something clearly and make themselves available when the article is actually being written.
If you are a doctor or suitably qualified healthcare professional who can do those things, you can become extremely useful to the media.
But qualifications alone are not the entire job. A technically brilliant clinician who answers every question in language only another specialist understands is much harder to use in a consumer newspaper than somebody who can preserve the medical accuracy while explaining the same subject in ordinary English.
That is what healthcare expert PR is really about. It is taking genuine professional knowledge and making it useful to journalism without overstating it, oversimplifying it or turning it into an advertisement for a clinic.
How do doctors and healthcare experts get quoted in the media?
At the simplest level, journalists need experts and doctors make exceptionally strong sources where their credentials match the subject.
A journalist may be writing about a newly published medical study and want somebody independent to explain what it actually means. They might be covering a seasonal illness and need a doctor to explain warning signs or common misconceptions. A consumer publication could be writing about sleep, digestive health, women's health, mental health or skincare and need somebody appropriately qualified to provide context.
Sometimes the opportunity originates with the journalist. At other times, the PR team identifies a topic already receiving attention and approaches relevant media proactively with an expert who can contribute something useful.
The important distinction is that expert commentary is not the same thing as advertising a medical practice.
If a newspaper asks a surgeon about bowel-cancer warning signs, the purpose of the quotation is to help explain the subject to the reader. The doctor may be identified by name, credentials and organisation, creating valuable visibility in the process, but the answer itself should not become a paragraph about why somebody should book an appointment at their clinic.
The expertise earns the attribution.
That is the exchange.
Why do journalists need medical experts so often?
Health journalism touches almost everybody.
Research is constantly being published. Public-health advice changes. New treatments and technologies emerge. Existing medical subjects suddenly become relevant because of a celebrity diagnosis, a government announcement or a seasonal change.
Journalists covering those stories are not necessarily clinicians themselves.
They need somebody who can help them distinguish an interesting finding from an extraordinary claim, explain terminology, identify important limitations and tell readers what the information means in a wider context.
A consumer journalist also needs the answer to be comprehensible.
That combination creates a particular opportunity for healthcare professionals who are comfortable communicating publicly.
When I was working in journalism, qualifications and credentials were naturally important. So was previous media coverage where it existed, because it gave me a quick indication that somebody had already worked successfully with journalists.
But doctors and other healthcare professionals are relatively easy to investigate compared with somebody simply declaring themselves an expert online. Professional backgrounds, positions and qualifications can often be checked independently.
Once that credibility is established, the question becomes: Can this person help me with the story I am actually writing?
Are medical qualifications enough to secure media coverage?
No, although they give you a very strong starting position.
Imagine two equally qualified doctors.
One replies within an hour, answers exactly what the journalist asked, explains the issue in plain English and is available for a five-minute follow-up call.
The other sends a highly technical response two days later containing terminology an ordinary reader will not understand.
Both may be excellent clinicians.
Only one is particularly easy for that journalist to use.
Media suitability therefore combines several things: genuine credentials, relevant experience, the correct specialism, clear communication, availability and an understanding of what the publication needs.
Previous media experience can help, but I would never consider the absence of it a reason not to work with somebody.
Everybody has a first article.
The most useful expertise is usually clearly defined
When we begin working with a healthcare professional, one of the first things we do is establish what they can credibly discuss.
I prefer making that as clear as possible.
A general surgeon may be able to contribute to quite a broad range of general-health and surgical subjects because of the breadth of their training and clinical experience. A nutrition professional may have a much more defined area around nutrition and digestive health. A clinical psychologist has a different professional scope again.
Those distinctions matter.
Healthcare professions are not interchangeable simply because they all work somewhere within health.
We therefore create an expert profile that helps us understand the client's experience, credentials and particular areas of knowledge. We also discuss the subjects they actively want to become known for, the things they are comfortable discussing if useful, and anything they would rather avoid.
The more obvious the connection between somebody's credentials and the subject, the easier the proposition normally is for the journalist.
Different questions need different experts
There is no universal hierarchy where one type of healthcare professional is automatically the best source for every health article.
The question should determine the expertise.
An illustrative way to think about it is:
| Journalist's subject | Potentially relevant source |
|---|---|
| Surgical recovery or a general surgical procedure | Appropriately experienced surgeon |
| A specific skin disorder | Dermatologist or other appropriately qualified clinician |
| Psychological behaviour or mental-health patterns | Clinical psychologist, psychiatrist or other appropriately qualified mental-health professional, depending on the question |
| Nutrition and digestive habits | Appropriately qualified nutrition or dietetic professional, or relevant medical specialist depending on the claim |
| Rehabilitation after injury | Relevant physiotherapist, rehabilitation clinician or medical specialist |
| Medical aesthetics procedure | Appropriately qualified clinician with genuine experience of that particular procedure |
That table is deliberately illustrative rather than prescriptive. The actual question, professional scope and individual's experience still need checking.
Sometimes even journalists need help making that distinction.
Sometimes the journalist asks for the wrong type of doctor
I remember an opportunity involving Vie Aesthetics where the journalist specifically requested a gynaecologist for commentary about labiaplasty.
We represented Dr Ioannis Liakas, the clinic's Medical Director, who had relevant practical experience with the procedure, but he was not a gynaecologist.
Instead of simply deciding the opportunity was therefore impossible, we explained the position to the journalist. We made clear why Dr Liakas had relevant experience and allowed the journalist to decide whether that met the requirements of the article.
Ultimately, they were happy to use him.
The current Vie Aesthetics material confirms Dr Liakas's wider medical background as a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, former NHS consultant physician and experienced medical-aesthetics practitioner.
That experience taught me something important: the journalist's original description of the expert they want is not always the final word.
They may know exactly which specialty is required, in which case we respect it. On another occasion, the underlying expertise they actually need may be legitimately available from a professional with a different title.
Our job is to be transparent rather than trying to sneak somebody into an article under credentials they do not possess.
When should you say no to a medical media opportunity?
Media exposure should never be used as a reason to stretch somebody's expertise.
I cannot immediately think of a situation where we had a qualified healthcare client desperate to answer a journalist and I personally had to stop them because the subject was completely inappropriate.
Doctors generally understand their professional boundaries very well.
I can, however, remember a different client wanting to include medical-style advice in press material despite not having the professional credentials to provide it.
We discussed the issue and ultimately left that advice out.
That was absolutely the right decision.
The fact that a health claim might make a press release more interesting does not make it responsible.
Sometimes a professional saying, "This is not really my area," is considerably better for their long-term credibility than finding a way to answer everything.
What made Dr Ali Cadili such a useful media expert?
Dr Ali Cadili is a good example of what happens when very strong medical credentials are combined with media-friendly communication.
He is a general surgeon and surgical critical care specialist, with medical training in Canada and further surgical critical care training in the United States. Fair PR's published case study records 27 articles during the first approximately ten months of the campaign, with commentary appearing across national, regional and specialist media.
He brought genuine clinical authority, but equally importantly, he was quick.
That matters enormously.
Health journalists may be working on articles that need expert contribution that same day. Being highly qualified is not much use to a reporter facing a deadline at 4pm if every quote requires a week-long process.
The campaign covered subjects including bowel-cancer awareness, seasonal illness, antimicrobial resistance, emergency medicine, general health and other appropriate areas connected to his clinical experience.
What worked was not simply putting "Dr" before somebody's name.
The credentials were real, the topics broadly aligned with the expertise, and he could provide useful commentary when journalists needed it.
Health commentary needs to sound like journalism, not a medical paper
One of the main adjustments some doctors need when beginning media work is simply the audience.
A newspaper feature is not a research paper.
It is not being written for a room full of clinicians who already understand the terminology.
A national consumer publication could have millions of readers with completely different levels of medical knowledge.
If I receive an answer from a client that feels too technical, I approach it by putting myself in the position of the reader. Would somebody reading The Daily Mail, The Telegraph or The Times understand what this actually means?
If not, we work with the expert to make it clearer.
We may suggest another way of phrasing the point or go back with questions.
What we do not do is independently simplify the medicine until the qualification disappears.
The doctor remains the expert.
We are the writers helping the expert communicate.
What does simplifying medical commentary look like?
Imagine a journalist asks an expert about a newly reported observational study.
A technically correct response might read:
Illustrative technical version:\
"The observed association remains vulnerable to residual confounding and the study design does not permit causal inference, so the reported effect should be contextualised against the wider evidence base."
There is nothing necessarily wrong with the substance, but plenty of general readers will have to work too hard to understand it.
A more media-friendly version could be:
Illustrative clearer version:\
"The study found a link, but it cannot prove that one thing caused the other. Other differences between the people studied may explain part of the result, so this finding needs to be considered alongside the wider research."
The medical meaning has not been deliberately made more dramatic.
The uncertainty is still there.
We have simply translated it.
That final step is important because health journalism becomes dangerous if "simplifying" means removing every caveat until an early piece of research sounds like established medical fact.
Evidence matters more than having a strong opinion
Experts in other sectors can sometimes get a long way journalistically with a strong professional opinion.
Healthcare requires more care.
Clinical experience is useful, but it is not automatically the same thing as research evidence.
An emerging study is not automatically established scientific consensus.
An association does not automatically demonstrate causation.
A patient's individual experience does not establish that the same outcome will occur in everybody else.
That does not mean healthcare experts need to attach a bibliography to every newspaper quote.
It means knowing what type of statement you are making.
"This is what I commonly see in my clinical practice" is different from "research proves this happens".
A good expert knows the difference and communicates it honestly.
For UK doctors specifically, the GMC's current professional standards say public professional communications must be accurate and not false or misleading. They also say doctors must not deliberately omit relevant information, minimise risks of harm or present opinion as established fact, and relevant conflicts of interest should be declared.
PR does not suspend those duties.
Can doctors comment on breaking medical news?
Yes, and it can be one of the strongest ways to build a media profile.
Breaking health news creates immediate demand for context.
Perhaps a new study has been published.
A public figure has disclosed a diagnosis.
There is a developing public-health issue.
A medical topic is suddenly dominating social media.
The journalist wants somebody credible who can tell readers what matters and, equally importantly, what does not yet matter.
Speed is particularly important here.
But I would never want speed to come at the expense of accuracy.
If the doctor has not read the study, we need to be careful about presenting them as if they have.
If important evidence is not yet available, say so.
Sometimes "we do not know yet" is the most responsible answer available.
Why do journalists keep returning to the same doctor?
Because once you find somebody useful, you remember them.
A doctor who is quick, clear, accurate, available and easy to work with can become incredibly valuable to a journalist.
This is where expert PR can develop beyond individual pitches.
At the beginning of a campaign, we may be doing much more of the work to introduce somebody and establish what they can talk about.
Over time, journalists start recognising the name.
They may contact us directly because they already know that client can help.
For some people we have represented over very long periods, our role eventually becomes much more like a press office and vetting service. Instead of constantly searching for every opportunity, we are deciding which incoming opportunities are worth the client's time.
That is a very strong position to reach.
It does not happen after three quotes.
It is built through repeated reliability.
Relationships can create more influence over time, but not editorial control
I think there is a practical value in being accommodating to journalists when the opportunity is suitable, including occasionally helping them on a subject that may not be your absolute dream topic.
The journalist learns what you are like to work with.
Later, you may have something you particularly want to discuss, and there is already a relationship there.
You can say, "This is something I'm really interested in and I think there could be a story here."
That does not mean the journalist owes you coverage.
It means you are no longer an unknown person asking for their attention.
The relationship has context.
That can be particularly valuable for healthcare experts because journalists covering health frequently return to similar subject areas.
You can become more selective as your profile develops
When somebody first starts PR, I generally like a sensible balance between focus and openness.
We need to know the subjects they particularly want to own.
But I do not want a doctor saying, "I will only ever discuss these two extremely narrow topics" if they legitimately have useful expertise across several areas.
Broader opportunities can establish the media profile.
They demonstrate that the expert is credible.
They create published examples journalists can find.
They build relationships.
As that portfolio grows, the positioning can become increasingly deliberate.
The doctor may still contribute to broad health coverage but bring answers back towards the subjects they particularly want to become known for.
That is often a much more realistic route than demanding from day one that every national newspaper write about the exact specialist subject the client personally finds most interesting.
How we position a doctor with no previous media experience
No media experience does not worry me.
I would much rather have somebody with exceptional professional credibility and no press history than somebody extremely comfortable on camera who has very little genuine expertise.
Our starting point is positioning.
At Fair PR, Lucy Dartford conducts our Founder & Authority Positioning Session, which gives us the opportunity to properly understand what somebody can discuss, what they want to discuss, subjects they could contribute to but may not be especially enthusiastic about, and topics they do not want to touch.
We can then look at how those areas overlap with actual media demand.
That distinction matters.
There may be a subject the client loves but journalists rarely ask about.
There may be another legitimate part of their expertise that produces regular opportunities and gives us a way to build their profile first.
Where somebody needs additional support with interviews or public communication, media training can also form part of the preparation.
The purpose is not to manufacture a media personality.
It is to help a genuine expert communicate effectively in a different environment.
Mental-health expertise creates particularly broad editorial opportunities
The Cambridge Therapy Centre campaign is a good example of how a clear professional specialism can connect with much wider consumer journalism.
Christine Schneider is an HCPC-registered Clinical Psychologist as well as a BACP Senior Accredited Counsellor and Psychotherapist. Fair PR's published case study records more than 30 media opportunities during the six-month campaign.
The interesting thing is the breadth of subjects that psychology can legitimately touch when the professional foundation is right.
Coverage involved mental health and wellbeing, but also relationships, rejection, social burnout, habits, toxic positivity, sleep, social interaction and other aspects of everyday behaviour.
That does not mean a psychologist becomes an expert on every lifestyle subject.
It demonstrates that good positioning starts with genuine professional knowledge and then looks at all the places where that knowledge is relevant to questions journalists are already asking.
Nutrition works in a similar way, within its own boundaries
Goodness Me Nutrition provides another useful example.
Anna Mapson's positioning centred on nutrition and digestive health. The documented campaign records 13 published media opportunities across national, health and lifestyle publications, with topics including IBS, indigestion, meal timing, digestive symptoms, eating habits and wider wellbeing questions.
The lesson is not that every nutrition practitioner has identical credentials or should comment on all of those issues.
They do not.
It is that a clearly defined area of genuine expertise can have more applications in consumer journalism than somebody initially expects.
The stronger the alignment between the person's actual professional background and the media question, the easier that work becomes.
Patient confidentiality does not disappear because a story would make good PR
This is particularly important.
General expert commentary is normally about explaining a subject rather than discussing identifiable patients.
If somebody wants to use a patient case, the professional obligations around confidentiality still apply.
For UK doctors, the GMC says patients have a right to expect their personal information to be treated confidentially. Its guidance says doctors should use the minimum necessary personal information, use anonymised information where practicable and seek explicit consent for disclosure of identifiable patient information for purposes outside direct care unless another lawful justification applies.
Importantly, removing a name does not necessarily make information anonymous.
A combination of details could still identify somebody.
A rare diagnosis, location, occupation, age and unusual circumstances might be enough for people close to the patient to work out who is being discussed.
Doctors and other regulated healthcare professionals should follow the requirements applying to their own profession and jurisdiction.
From a PR perspective, my view is much simpler: a potentially good story is never a reason to become casual with somebody's medical privacy.
What should a healthcare expert disclose?
Anything materially relevant to the credibility or independence of what they are saying should be handled transparently.
If a doctor is discussing a treatment produced by a company that pays them, that relationship may matter.
If they have a commercial interest in a product being discussed, the journalist should not unknowingly present them as completely independent.
Again, for UK doctors, GMC public-communication guidance specifically addresses the need to declare conflicts of interest.
Disclosure does not necessarily mean the expert cannot comment.
It allows the journalist to make an informed editorial decision.
How should doctors prepare for interviews?
Start by understanding what the journalist actually wants.
Is this a written quote?
A background conversation?
A telephone interview?
Television?
Radio?
A specialist medical publication?
Those environments are different.
For a written answer, you have time to make the point particularly precise.
A phone interview may involve unexpected follow-up questions.
Broadcast normally rewards shorter explanations because the journalist cannot use a four-minute answer as a ten-second clip.
Specialist medical media may reasonably expect more technical detail than a mass-market newspaper.
Before any of them, I would understand the topic, refresh myself on any evidence I am likely to discuss, identify the important caveats and think about how to explain the central point plainly.
I would not attempt to memorise an entire script.
You want the person to sound like the expert they are.
Journalists retain editorial control
Doctors sometimes enter media work assuming the professional nature of their role means they will approve the finished article.
That should not be assumed.
A journalist may check facts or come back with follow-up questions, particularly where accuracy is important.
That is different from handing the source editorial control over the finished piece.
The publication decides its headline, structure and which quotations ultimately appear.
This is another reason to make your original comments accurate enough that you are comfortable seeing them quoted publicly.
If a particularly complex point could be dangerously misleading when shortened, tell the journalist why the qualification matters.
Good journalists normally want the medical meaning to be right too.
What stops healthcare experts getting quoted?
The problems are often much less dramatic than people imagine.
Sometimes the answer is simply too technical.
The doctor has written for other clinicians rather than the publication's readers.
Sometimes a response is too late.
The article is already finished.
Occasionally, an expert drifts into promotion and keeps mentioning their clinic, treatment or service when the journalist simply asked for medical context.
Another issue is presenting somebody as an authority across too many unrelated subjects. That can weaken an otherwise strong profile because the journalist begins wondering what the actual specialism is.
Unsupported certainty can be particularly damaging in health journalism. A confident answer is good. An absolute statement unsupported by evidence is not.
And then there is simple availability. If a journalist repeatedly contacts somebody and never receives an answer until three days after deadline, eventually they are likely to start contacting another expert first.
A medical expert should be media-ready before the opportunity appears
For healthcare clients, I like having the core information organised in advance.
That means understanding:
the person's exact qualifications and professional status;
their genuine areas of specialist and broader expertise;
topics they will and will not discuss;
any relevant professional interests or conflicts that may require disclosure;
whether they can respond quickly to written requests;
whether they are comfortable with telephone or broadcast interviews;
how approvals work if they are employed by a larger organisation;
good professional photographs and an accurate biography;
reliable contact arrangements for urgent opportunities.
The list is not glamorous.
It is what makes reactive media work possible.
When the journalist needs an expert this afternoon, that is not the moment to begin working out what the doctor's qualifications actually are.
Why speed matters particularly in health journalism
A lot of healthcare commentary is time-sensitive.
That is why we use channels such as WhatsApp with clients when appropriate. If something genuinely urgent appears, an email sitting unread for six hours can mean the opportunity disappears.
Different clients develop different systems.
Some reserve particular days for reviewing proactive content or signing off press releases.
Others book calls where we can work through several pieces of material together.
Urgent commentary then operates through a faster route.
There needs to be a process.
The perfect system is the one that allows the expert to remain accurate without making every response painfully slow.
Can healthcare media coverage benefit a clinic?
Yes, but I would describe the benefit carefully.
When a qualified clinician repeatedly appears in credible independent media explaining subjects connected to their professional expertise, that creates a public body of evidence showing what they know and how they communicate.
Potential patients may encounter that coverage.
Professional peers may see it.
Journalists may discover it when searching for sources.
It can support a broader online profile.
What it does not prove is that the doctor is clinically better than somebody who has never appeared in the press.
Media coverage is not a clinical endorsement.
It does not establish that a treatment works.
It does not guarantee patient enquiries.
It is evidence of media visibility and public communication around the expertise.
Those are valuable things in their own right without exaggerating what they mean.
What have I learnt from working with healthcare media experts?
Probably that doctors and properly qualified health professionals are among the strongest potential media experts we encounter.
The demand exists.
The credentials are often straightforward to demonstrate.
Journalists genuinely need the information.
The challenge is usually turning professional knowledge into something that works within journalism.
That means deciding which opportunities deserve the doctor's time, ensuring the topic fits their expertise, getting answers back quickly and making those answers understandable without stripping away important medical nuance.
I have also learnt that somebody does not need previous media experience to become extremely good at it.
The first few opportunities establish how the process works.
Then the doctor becomes quicker.
We understand their opinions better.
Journalists begin recognising them.
The opportunities become easier to assess.
Eventually, with the right person and enough consistency, the relationship can reverse. Instead of constantly introducing the doctor to journalists, journalists begin coming back asking whether that doctor can help them again.
That is the point where expert PR becomes particularly powerful.
But it still starts with the same thing it started with on day one: real expertise.
PR can make that expertise easier to find.
We can position it.
We can write around it.
We can identify relevant stories.
We can help translate highly technical material for a consumer audience.
We can build journalist relationships around it.
What we cannot responsibly do is invent the medical authority underneath it.
Frequently asked questions
How can a doctor get quoted in a newspaper?
Develop clear areas of media expertise, make your credentials easy to verify and provide useful commentary on subjects that genuinely fall within your professional knowledge. Speed, clarity and availability can make a major difference once the right opportunity appears.
Do doctors need a PR agency to get media coverage?
No. Doctors can communicate with journalists themselves. A PR agency can become useful where the expert wants help with positioning, identifying opportunities, translating complex material for different audiences, outreach and managing the ongoing media process.
Can a newly qualified doctor become a media expert?
Potentially, yes, provided the subject genuinely fits their qualifications and experience. A more experienced specialist may be preferable for some questions, while other stories may benefit from a doctor's more recent or specific experience. Credentials should never be stretched simply to create an opportunity.
What qualifications do journalists look for in medical experts?
It depends on the story. Journalists generally need credentials relevant to the particular question rather than one universal qualification. The person's professional role, registration where applicable, specialist experience and current work may all be relevant.
Can healthcare experts comment on breaking medical news?
Yes, when the subject genuinely falls within their expertise and they have enough reliable information to comment responsibly. Being first should never require pretending uncertainty does not exist.
Does a doctor need published research to be quoted?
Not necessarily. Clinical experience and professional qualifications can make somebody a valuable source for many stories. Research credentials may become particularly relevant when the article is highly technical or directly concerns scientific research.
Can a doctor discuss patient cases with journalists?
Doctors must respect applicable confidentiality and privacy duties. UK GMC guidance says identifiable patient information used outside direct care generally requires explicit consent unless another lawful justification applies, and anonymised information should be used where practicable.
How do you become a regular expert source for health journalists?
Be consistently accurate, relevant, responsive and easy to understand. Journalists often remember sources who make their job easier, although previous coverage does not guarantee they will use you again.
Can media coverage help build a doctor's professional reputation?
It can contribute to public visibility and create independent coverage associated with the person's expertise. It should not be presented as proof of superior clinical ability or as an endorsement of medical outcomes.
Does being quoted in the media guarantee more patients?
No. Media exposure can contribute to awareness and credibility, but patient enquiries and commercial outcomes depend on many other factors.
Could Your Medical Expertise Be Useful to Journalists?
Fair Public Relations works with appropriately qualified doctors, clinicians and healthcare professionals to identify the subjects where their expertise can genuinely help journalists.
We start by understanding the professional behind the profile: their credentials, specialisms, opinions, preferred topics and boundaries. We then develop appropriate media angles, prepare commentary, approach relevant journalists and help clients communicate complex subjects clearly while retaining the expertise and qualifications that make the contribution valuable.
The aim is not to turn a doctor into a commentator on everything.
It is to make the right expertise useful in the right places.
Written by Jordan Baker
Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist with more than a decade of experience in PR and media relations. He writes about health and medical PR, expert positioning, journalist outreach and how qualified professionals can turn genuine expertise into responsible earned-media opportunities.
