Expectations, etiquette, and common pitfalls for foreign correspondents
For international correspondents working in the United States, interviews often feel familiar on the surface yet unexpectedly complex in practice. While American sources are generally accessible and willing to speak, the cultural norms that shape interviews can differ significantly from those in other journalistic environments. Understanding these norms is essential for producing accurate, nuanced reporting.
One of the defining characteristics of American interviews is informality. Conversations may begin with small talk, humor, or personal questions that seem unrelated to the subject at hand. This opening is often a way to establish rapport rather than a sign of unprofessionalism. Foreign correspondents who move too quickly into formal questioning may appear abrupt or distant, potentially limiting openness later in the conversation.
At the same time, informality should not be mistaken for intimacy. Friendly language and a relaxed tone do not necessarily indicate trust or a willingness to speak candidly. American sources often maintain clear boundaries between what they are comfortable sharing publicly and what they prefer to keep private. Recognizing these boundaries helps correspondents avoid pressing too hard or misinterpreting politeness as consent.
Directness operates differently in American communication. Sources may avoid saying “no” explicitly and instead use indirect phrases to signal hesitation or refusal. Statements such as “I’m not sure that’s something I can discuss” or “let me think about that” often indicate limits. Interpreting these cues correctly prevents misunderstandings and protects long-term relationships.
Interview preparation is particularly important. American sources tend to expect journalists to arrive well informed. Asking questions that can easily be answered through basic research may be perceived as lack of preparation. Demonstrating knowledge of a source’s background and previous statements signals seriousness and respect.
Follow-up questions play a crucial role. American interviews often require persistence to move beyond rehearsed talking points. Asking for clarification, examples, or concrete details helps deepen the conversation without appearing confrontational. The tone of these follow-ups matters as much as their content.
Foreign correspondents should also be attentive to expectations around attribution. Many American sources are highly conscious of how their words will be quoted and distributed. Clarifying whether a conversation is on the record, off the record, or on background at the outset helps avoid confusion and disputes later. These distinctions are taken seriously and should be honored consistently.
Technology has further shaped interview dynamics. Virtual interviews are now common, and video calls often replace in-person meetings. While convenient, remote interviews can make it harder to read body language and subtle cues. Correspondents may need to compensate by asking more explicit questions and confirming understanding during the conversation.
Power dynamics also influence interviews. In professional or institutional settings, sources may be trained in media engagement and skilled at controlling narratives. Recognizing when answers are evasive or overly polished allows correspondents to adjust their approach and seek additional perspectives.
Cultural assumptions can easily interfere with interpretation. Humor, irony, and understatement are frequently used in American speech. Without careful listening, these elements can be misunderstood or quoted out of context. When in doubt, asking a source to clarify intent reduces the risk of misrepresentation.
Building trust with American sources often requires consistency rather than intensity. Multiple interactions over time tend to produce more meaningful exchanges than a single, high-pressure interview. Maintaining professional contact, following up accurately, and honoring commitments strengthen credibility.
It is also important to remember that American sources may have limited understanding of how international media operates. Explaining the audience, format, and purpose of a story can help sources feel more comfortable and cooperative. Transparency benefits both parties.
Interviewing in the United States is not fundamentally more difficult than elsewhere, but it is shaped by specific cultural expectations. Foreign correspondents who recognize these patterns are better positioned to ask effective questions, interpret responses accurately, and avoid common pitfalls.
Strong interviews depend on preparation, cultural awareness, and careful listening. By adapting their approach to American norms while maintaining journalistic independence, international correspondents can produce reporting that is both respectful and rigorous.
