By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
A journalist may have several perfectly credible people available for the same article.
They cannot necessarily quote all of them.
That means professional credibility is only the first part of becoming a useful media source.
When I worked as a journalist, once I was satisfied that somebody had a legitimate reason to comment on the subject, practical editorial questions became just as important.
Who actually answered me?
Who answered the question I asked?
Who had the most interesting perspective?
Who gave me something I could quote?
Who had I used before and knew was reliable?
And crucially, who replied while I was still writing the story?
An expert can be extremely accomplished and still lose a media opportunity to somebody who simply made the journalist's job easier.
Does the expert genuinely know the subject?
This is the starting point.
If I am writing about a specialist medical issue, I want somebody whose professional background genuinely fits it.
If the story is about employment law, I want somebody with relevant legal knowledge.
If I need an explanation of recruitment behaviour, I may want an experienced recruiter or HR professional.
The expert's title alone is not enough.
A doctor is not an expert on every medical speciality.
A lawyer is not an expert on every area of law.
A financial professional may understand one part of finance extremely well and another only generally.
The more precise the connection between the person's expertise and the journalist's question, the stronger the proposition normally becomes.
Can the journalist verify who they are?
Journalists need confidence that the person being presented to them actually exists in the professional form claimed.
Verification differs by profession.
For a doctor or solicitor, professional registrations and recognised qualifications may be particularly relevant.
For a business founder or industry practitioner, a credible professional history, company role and demonstrable experience may provide the evidence.
Previous published work or media appearances can help too.
When I was a journalist, seeing that somebody had contributed successfully to other reputable media could act as a useful barometer.
But it was not a requirement.
A genuinely credible professional does not become less knowledgeable because nobody has quoted them yet.
Is the expert relevant to this exact story?
This sounds obvious, but it is a common pitching mistake.
PR people sometimes see one word in a journalist request and decide it matches their client.
"Health" does not mean every healthcare professional.
"Money" does not mean every finance expert.
"Business" does not mean every entrepreneur.
Good media sourcing looks at the actual question.
If the journalist wants somebody who understands inheritance tax, pitching a general business accountant whose work rarely touches inheritance tax may be weak even if they have excellent credentials.
Relevance beats proximity.
Can they explain it to the audience?
A journalist usually has to translate complicated subjects for a particular reader.
That reader may be a consumer, business owner, specialist professional or industry insider.
The expert therefore needs to communicate at the appropriate level.
A national consumer newspaper is unlikely to need a paragraph that sounds as though it has been lifted from a postgraduate textbook.
Conversely, a highly specialist trade publication may want more technical detail.
When I had several credible experts to choose from, the person who gave me the clearest, most usable and most quotable response had an obvious advantage.
Quotable does not mean sensational.
It means the point is clear enough that the reader understands why it matters.
Does replying first matter?
Very often, yes.
Journalism works to deadlines.
If three credible experts can answer the same question and one gives me an excellent response while I am actively writing, I may no longer need the other two.
This can feel unfair when the second expert eventually sends an equally good answer.
But the journalist has a job to finish.
That is why responsiveness is such an important part of expert PR.
The strongest source on paper cannot help with an article that has already gone to the editor.
Do existing journalist relationships matter?
They can help.
If I had used an expert before and they were consistently accurate, responsive and easy to work with, naturally there was some confidence in returning to them.
I already understood what they knew.
I knew they would probably answer.
I knew the information was likely to be useful.
But relationships should not be confused with automatic coverage.
If somebody I knew well was irrelevant to the story, I would not quote them simply because their PR had my phone number.
The expertise and story still come first.
Do journalists want strong opinions?
Sometimes.
An expert who has a meaningful and defensible view can be much more interesting than somebody who refuses to say anything beyond the most obvious statement.
Imagine a journalist asks two workplace experts whether four-day weeks are likely to become mainstream.
Expert one says:
"There are advantages and disadvantages to different working patterns and every company is different."
True.
Almost unusable.
Expert two explains that the biggest barrier is not employee willingness but a particular operational problem they repeatedly see in businesses, then gives an example.
That gives the journalist something to work with.
The opinion still needs to be supportable.
Being controversial purely for attention is not expertise.
What causes a credible expert to be discarded?
Some of the reasons are remarkably mundane.
They answer a different question.
They send far too much material.
They use so much jargon that the useful point is buried.
They turn the answer into an advertisement.
Or they reply too late.
I saw all of those things as a journalist.
Imagine asking:
"What is the biggest financial mistake people make when changing jobs?"
and receiving 800 words explaining the adviser's firm's entire service proposition.
The credentials may be excellent.
The answer is still poor.
Journalists generally do not have time to rewrite a marketing brochure into a quotation.
Are promotional answers particularly damaging?
Yes.
Expert commentary works because the information is useful independently of whatever the expert sells.
Suppose a physiotherapist is asked about the causes of back pain.
A useful answer explains the issue.
A promotional answer says:
"Back pain can be serious, which is why people should book our clinic's award-winning treatment programme."
The first serves the reader.
The second serves the business.
The expert may still receive attribution in the published article. Their organisation may be named. There may even be a link.
But that visibility is the consequence of contributing something useful.
It should not overwhelm the contribution itself.
Do journalists consider conflicts of interest?
They can, and transparency matters.
An expert may have a commercial interest connected to the subject.
That does not automatically disqualify them.
A mortgage broker discussing mortgages has an obvious commercial connection to mortgages.
A cybersecurity company commenting on cyber risk operates within the market it is discussing.
The relevant questions include whether the interest is clear, whether the comment remains accurate and whether the source is being presented appropriately.
Hidden conflicts are much more problematic than transparent ones.
Two credible experts, one available quote
Imagine a journalist needs a psychologist to discuss workplace anxiety.
Both possible sources are appropriately qualified.
Expert A responds the next morning with three paragraphs describing their clinic, its services and awards before offering a general statement about stress.
Expert B responds within two hours, gives three concise observations about what may contribute to workplace anxiety, explains one important limitation and provides their exact professional credentials.
The journalist may choose Expert B.
That does not mean Expert B is a better psychologist.
It means Expert B was the better source for that article, at that moment.
This distinction is important.
Media usefulness and professional competence overlap, but they are not identical.
Why might an excellent expert still not appear?
Sometimes nothing went wrong.
The story changed.
The editor cut the section.
Another expert provided a contrasting view the publication preferred.
The journalist received more material than they could use.
Breaking news pushed the feature back.
The article disappeared entirely.
Or the journalist already had enough sources by the time the response arrived.
That is why no responsible PR agency can guarantee that every good response becomes a published quotation.
Editorial processes contain too many variables outside the expert's control.
How do you become the source journalists return to?
Be credible.
Know where your expertise begins and ends.
Respond when you can.
Answer the actual question.
Use ordinary language where the audience requires it.
Give an informed view rather than empty filler.
Be accurate.
And be easy to deal with.
Those qualities are not glamorous.
They are extremely valuable.
Over time, somebody who repeatedly provides useful information can become the kind of source a journalist, editor or PR team remembers when the next relevant story appears.
Frequently asked questions
Do journalists always choose the most qualified person?
Not necessarily. Qualifications and relevant experience help establish credibility, but a journalist also needs a source who can answer the specific question clearly and before the deadline.
Does answering a journalist quickly guarantee a quote?
No. Speed can help when a story is being written, but the response must still be suitable and the editor may change, shorten or cancel the article.
Will a journalist quote my company if I give an expert response?
They may identify your organisation as part of your attribution, but this is their editorial decision. Expert commentary should help readers rather than simply promote your business.
How can an expert become a journalist's regular source?
By consistently providing relevant, accurate, usable comments, being transparent about professional boundaries and making it straightforward for journalists to get in touch.
Want to become a useful source for journalists?
Fair helps credible specialists identify relevant media opportunities, develop genuine expert commentary and approach journalists professionally.
Explore Expert Commentary PR, or read more about why journalists ignore PR pitches and how consultants become media experts.
About the author
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist with more than a decade of experience in journalism and PR. He writes about small-business PR, SEO and GEO strategy, AI search, earned media and practical ways businesses can build credible visibility without wasting money on work they do not yet need.
View Jordan Baker’s media expert profile
