What “purpose and angle” mean in an interview
An interview is not just a conversation you record; it is a reporting tool designed to deliver specific material for a specific story. The purpose is what the interview must produce (what you need to walk away with). The angle is the lens that determines which parts of the topic matter most for your audience right now.
When purpose and angle are clear, your questions become selective and efficient: you know what to press on, what to park, and what to verify elsewhere. When they’re vague, interviews drift into background chatter, quotable but unusable lines, or missing the one detail the story actually needs.
Three anchors to clarify before you write questions
- The central question: the story’s main uncertainty, tension, or claim to be tested. It should be answerable with reporting, not opinion alone.
- The audience need: what your audience must understand to make sense of the issue (impact, stakes, practical implications, fairness). This keeps you from interviewing for your curiosity rather than their clarity.
- The missing information: what you do not yet know that prevents you from writing the story with confidence (specific facts, mechanisms, timelines, decision criteria, data sources, responsible parties).
Clarifying what the interview must deliver
1) Define the central question (CQ)
Write the central question as a single sentence that starts with How, Why, or What and points to a verifiable reality.
- Weak: “Is the new policy good?”
- Stronger: “What measurable changes has the new policy produced in wait times, and what explains those changes?”
Test your CQ with two checks:
- Reporting test: Could you answer it with documents, data, observation, and multiple sources?
- Relevance test: Would your audience care about the answer this week?
2) Specify the audience need (AN)
Audience need is not demographics; it’s the job the story must do for them. Choose one primary need and one secondary need.
- Listen to the audio with the screen off.
- Earn a certificate upon completion.
- Over 5000 courses for you to explore!
Download the app
| Audience need | What you must get in interviews |
|---|---|
| Impact | Who is affected, how much, how often, where, and with what consequences |
| Accountability | Who decided, who benefits, who is responsible, what standards apply |
| Explanation | Mechanism: how the system works, what changed, why it changed |
| Practical guidance | What people can do, eligibility, timelines, constraints, trade-offs |
| Fairness | Who is left out, unequal effects, counterarguments, uncertainties |
3) List the missing information (MI) as “unknowns”
Make a short inventory of what you cannot yet state confidently. Phrase each unknown as a question you can answer with evidence.
- “What is the baseline (before) and the current (after)?”
- “What documents show the decision pathway?”
- “What are the criteria used to approve/deny?”
- “What is the timeline of key events?”
- “What do independent experts agree/disagree on?”
This list becomes your interview shopping list. If an interview cannot credibly fill any item on it, it may not be the right interview for this story.
Step-by-step: Translate a reporting angle into interview objectives
Use this method to turn an angle into objectives you can assign to sources and then into questions.
Step 1: Write the angle as a “because” statement
Angles often sound like themes (“housing costs,” “school safety”). Make it operational by adding causation or tension.
- Angle: “Emergency room delays”
- Because statement: “Emergency room delays are rising because inpatient beds are full, creating bottlenecks that change patient outcomes.”
Step 2: Break the angle into three objective types
Every strong interview plan usually needs a mix of:
- Facts to confirm: specific, checkable claims (numbers, dates, policies, procedures, thresholds).
- Context to understand: how the system works, what changed, what constraints exist, what trade-offs decision-makers faced.
- Perspectives to capture: lived experience, stakeholder viewpoints, dissenting interpretations, and the human meaning of the facts.
Step 3: Convert each objective into “deliverables”
Deliverables are the concrete outputs you want from the interview. Write them as nouns, not questions.
- Facts deliverables: “Monthly wait-time data for the last 24 months,” “the written policy on triage,” “the date the staffing model changed.”
- Context deliverables: “a step-by-step walk-through of patient flow,” “constraints on hiring,” “how bed availability is tracked.”
- Perspective deliverables: “a patient’s timeline,” “a nurse’s description of bottlenecks,” “an administrator’s rationale,” “an independent expert’s critique.”
Step 4: Assign a credibility standard to each deliverable
Not every source can answer every objective. For each deliverable, decide what counts as credible:
- Direct knowledge: witnessed/participated (frontline staff, affected individuals).
- Document authority: owns/maintains records (records custodian, data analyst, agency spokesperson who can provide documents).
- Independent expertise: can interpret without conflict (researcher, auditor, professional association).
- Decision authority: made/approved the choice (director, elected official, board member).
This prevents “authority drift,” where a confident speaker becomes your default explainer even when they lack direct knowledge or incentives are misaligned.
Step 5: Build an objective grid (angle → objectives → sources)
Create a simple grid before you draft questions. Example structure:
| Objective type | Must-have takeaway | Best source type | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fact | Wait times increased X% since date Y | Data owner / records | Dataset + methodology notes |
| Context | Where the bottleneck occurs in patient flow | Frontline + operations manager | Compare accounts + internal process docs |
| Perspective | What delays mean for patients and staff | Affected individuals + staff | Corroborate timelines + documents |
Step 6: Turn each must-have takeaway into two question paths
For each takeaway, write:
- Primary path: the direct question that should yield the takeaway.
- Fallback path: a different route if the source can’t/won’t answer (ask for documents, ask for process, ask for an example, ask who else knows).
Example (takeaway: “staffing model changed in March”):
- Primary: “When did the staffing model change, and what exactly changed?”
- Fallback: “What document or memo announced it, and who approved it?”
Step 7: Define what “success” looks like for the interview
Write a short checklist you can use during the interview to stay on track:
- Did I obtain or request the key documents/data?
- Did I get a clear timeline with dates?
- Did I capture at least one concrete example that illustrates the mechanism?
- Did I test the source’s claims against constraints, incentives, and alternatives?
- Did I identify who else can confirm or dispute the key points?
Worked example: From angle to interview objectives
Scenario
You’re reporting on a city’s new short-term rental enforcement push.
Central question (CQ): “Is the city’s enforcement reducing illegal short-term rentals, and what are the consequences for tenants and hosts?”
Audience need (AN): Accountability (primary), Impact (secondary).
Missing information (MI): number of inspections, citations, appeals; criteria for targeting; evidence of displacement; how compliance is measured; what legal limits exist.
Translate into objectives
| Objective type | Facts to confirm | Context to understand | Perspectives to capture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliverables | Inspection/citation counts; targeting criteria; compliance rate; timeline of policy changes | How cases are initiated; evidence standard; appeal process; resource constraints | Tenant experience; host experience; neighborhood concerns; independent housing expert view |
| Who can credibly answer | Enforcement unit data owner; records; policy documents | Enforcement supervisor; city attorney; administrative hearing office | Tenants affected; hosts cited; tenant advocates; landlord/host groups; researchers |
| How to verify | Datasets; memos; ordinances; hearing records | Process docs; compare accounts across roles | Corroborate timelines; documents; multiple interviews |
Exercise: Draft your interview purpose, takeaways, and source map
Use this exercise to produce a one-page plan you can bring into any interview.
Part A — One-sentence interview purpose
Fill in this template:
My purpose for this interview is to [confirm/understand/capture] ______ so I can answer ______ for an audience that needs ______.Example:
My purpose for this interview is to confirm how the city selects properties for short-term rental enforcement so I can answer whether enforcement is fair and effective for an audience that needs accountability about how rules are applied.Part B — Must-have takeaways (5–8 items)
Write takeaways as statements you want to be able to write in your story (or explicitly note what you must be able to attribute).
- “The city initiated enforcement primarily through [complaints/data sweeps/other].”
- “Targeting criteria include [A, B, C], and exclusions include [D].”
- “Since [date], inspections increased/decreased by [amount].”
- “The most common violation is [X], with typical penalties of [Y].”
- “The appeal process takes about [time], and outcomes are usually [result].”
- “Unintended consequence reported by tenants/hosts is [impact], supported by [evidence].”
Mark each takeaway with a label: F (fact), C (context), or P (perspective). Aim for a balanced set.
Part C — Source map: who can credibly answer each area
Create a map with three columns: Area, Best source, Backup source / verification. Start with your must-have takeaways and assign sources.
| Area / takeaway | Primary credible source | Backup / verification |
|---|---|---|
| F: Inspection and citation counts by month | Enforcement unit data analyst / records custodian | Public records; budget reports; hearing logs |
| F: Targeting criteria | Enforcement supervisor + written policy | Ordinance text; internal guidance; audit report |
| C: How a case is opened and investigated | Frontline inspector | Process documents; compare with supervisor account |
| C: Legal limits and evidence standard | City attorney / hearing officer | Case decisions; ordinance; court filings |
| P: Tenant impact (displacement, harassment, stability) | Tenants directly affected | Lease notices; complaint records; advocates |
| P: Host impact (compliance burden, fairness) | Hosts cited or compliant hosts | Notices; receipts; host association |
| C/P: Independent assessment of effectiveness | Housing policy researcher | Published studies; independent datasets |
Optional constraint check (to sharpen your angle)
For each primary source you listed, write one constraint that might shape what they say, and one way you’ll compensate.
- Constraint: “Agency spokesperson may frame results positively.” Compensate: “Request raw data + methodology; interview independent analyst.”
- Constraint: “Affected individuals may generalize from one case.” Compensate: “Collect multiple cases; corroborate timelines with documents.”
Quick planning worksheet (copy/paste)
Central question (CQ): ____________________________________________ Audience need (AN): ____________________________________________ Missing information (MI): 1) __________________ 2) __________________ 3) __________________ 4) __________________ Angle as a “because” statement: ___________________________________ One-sentence interview purpose: ___________________________________ Must-have takeaways (label F/C/P): 1) __________________ 2) __________________ 3) __________________ 4) __________________ 5) __________________ Source map (area → primary → backup/verify): - __________________ → __________________ → __________________ - __________________ → __________________ → __________________ - __________________ → __________________ → __________________
