Today, in lecture, Katherine Reed (who, presumably, is reading this) mentioned something that stuck in my brain. Two common complaints she receives: Missourian reporters either were wasting a source’s time, or seemed uninformed on a subject.

I recognize that these sources are a part of our audience. I recognize that their credibility and negative view of us matters, should we come off as unprepared or lacking in readiness for a given interview. As a valuable member of the community, their word will spread. Yet I worry about managing perceptions on the part of sources to such a degree.

To come off as dumb to a given source doesn’t bother me—if anything, it often results in quotes wherein they walk me through technical terminology step-by-step, which can be super valuable. At times, a perception of “normie-ness” from a source can be an asset. I’d argue even that coming off as unintelligent or uninterested can, at times, lead to a better result with better verbiage on the part of a source. It can lead, in other words, to a better story for the reader.

That said, I don’t think that’s what Katherine was getting at. For certain, it’s true that a lot of people don’t really want to waste their time answering questions that a reporter should have answered themselves. Yet is asking questions to reach a deep understanding of an issue not what we do? Should we not sometimes push people to minor annoyance intentionally, even if it results in some awkwardness or even a negative interpersonal relationship? It’s an interesting thing to think about.