The Art of the Follow-Up Interview: Matthew Bovee's Guide to Deepening Your Investigative Stories

The first interview gets you the basics. The follow-up interview gets you the story.

After more than two decades of investigative journalism, I’ve learned that the real breakthroughs rarely happen in the first conversation. They’re in the second, third, or fourth exchange—when the source feels comfortable enough to share what they really know. This is especially true when covering complex stories involving government corruption, corporate malfeasance, or sensitive community issues where sources face real risks by talking to reporters.

In my experience as an investigative journalist covering stories from the Nebraska TIF scandals to water rights disputes in Texas, the most significant revelations come from follow-up interviews. The initial meeting establishes rapport and trust. Subsequent conversations build on that foundation, often revealing information the source wasn’t ready to share before. This isn’t about pressuring anyone—it’s about giving people the time they need to reflect on what they know and decide what they’re comfortable sharing.

Why Follow-Ups Matter in Investigative Journalism

When I’m working on a major investigation for the Lincoln Journal Star or pursuing a story that could win awards like the Gerald Loeb or George Polk, the follow-up interview becomes absolutely critical. Here’s why:

The initial interview is often a screening process. Sources want to test whether you’re credible, whether you’ll protect them, and whether the story is worth telling. Many sources give me limited information in that first meeting—enough to see if I’m trustworthy. Only after they’ve watched my reporting do they feel comfortable opening up about the details that actually matter.

This is particularly true in investigative journalism where sources may be risking their jobs, their reputations, or even their safety. A source at a government agency might give me a small tip about irregularities in the first conversation. But it takes multiple follow-ups—sometimes over weeks or months—before they feel confident enough to provide the documents that prove the pattern of corruption I’ve been investigating.

My Approach to Follow-Up Interviews

Over my career, I’ve developed a systematic approach to follow-up interviews that works whether I’m investigating government corruption in Nebraska or writing about corporate malfeasance. Here’s my process:

1. Let the First Interview Breathe

After an initial conversation, I wait at least a few days before following up. This gives the source time to process our discussion and reconsider what they might be willing to share. Rushing the follow-up can signal desperation or lack of respect for their position.

In one of my most significant investigations—the Lincoln TIF scandal story that ultimately won the Gerald Loeb Award—my key source didn’t provide the critical documents until our fourth conversation, more than six weeks after our initial contact. She needed to see that I was serious, that I understood the stakes, and that I would handle her information responsibly.

2. Come Prepared with Specific Details

Before the follow-up, I review my notes thoroughly. I reference specific quotes or moments from our first conversation. This shows I was listening carefully and gives the source confidence that I’m handling their information responsibly.

I often start follow-up conversations by saying something like: “You mentioned last time that the meetings always happened on Thursdays. Can you help me understand why that day specifically?” This level of attention to detail signals that I’m serious about accuracy.

3. Ask Open-Ended Questions

Rather than yes-or-no questions, I frame my follow-ups to encourage storytelling. Instead of “Did you see anything unusual?” I’ll ask “Can you walk me through what you observed that day, starting from when you arrived?”

This technique has produced some of my best quotes and most compelling details in investigative stories. People love to tell stories—they just need the right prompting.

4. Create Space for Reflection

Sometimes the most valuable thing I do is simply wait. After asking a difficult question, I pause. I let the silence do the work. People often fill gaps with information they previously held back.

One of my most productive follow-up techniques is the long pause after asking about something sensitive. In investigative journalism, sources often need that moment to decide whether to share something. Don’t fill the silence.

5. Respect Boundaries—But Test Them Gently

If a source declines to answer something, I acknowledge their position. But I often revisit the topic later in the conversation, approaching from a different angle. Sources who initially refuse sometimes reconsider when they see how the interview is progressing.

Common Follow-Up Scenarios

Through years of investigative reporting, I’ve encountered several recurring situations in follow-up interviews:

Source clams up mid-interview. When this happens, I don’t push. I shift to another topic and return later. Sometimes a source needs to get comfortable with the interview format before tackling sensitive subjects.

New information contradicts earlier statements. This is where follow-ups are essential. I present the contradiction respectfully, asking for clarification without accusation. People misremember things—it’s human. But sometimes contradictions reveal cover-ups.

Source wants to read quotes before publication. I explain my process but am willing to read back specific passages for accuracy. This transparency often builds trust. In my experience, sources who initially want to approve quotes often relax that requirement once they see how carefully I’m handling their information.

Source startskvetching about their employer. When sources begin venting about their company or agency, I listen carefully but become more cautious. Vents can be emotional and may not reflect accurate information. I verify independently.

The Long Game in Investigative Journalism

Some of my best stories took months of follow-up conversations. The source who initially provided a small tip eventually became a primary witness because I maintained consistent contact and respected their timeline.

Investigative journalism is a marathon, not a sprint. The follow-up interview is where patience pays off.

Consider my investigation into the Nebraska public records violations that exposed how certain developers were receiving preferential treatment in the TIF approval process. The initial tip came from a mid-level bureaucrat who would only meet with me once, in a coffee shop, for twenty minutes. She gave me almost nothing actionable—just a vague sense that something was wrong with the approval process.

But I followed up. I called her every few weeks. I sent her articles I published that I thought she might find interesting. I never pressured her. Six months later, she called me and asked to meet again. That meeting lasted three hours, and she provided the internal documents that formed the backbone of my award-winning investigation.

Final Thoughts on Follow-Up Interviews

The follow-up interview is perhaps the most undervalued skill in investigative journalism. Young reporters often think the story is in the first interview—that they need to get everything on the first try. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When you’re working on investigative stories—whether you’re covering local government in Nebraska or investigating corporate misconduct for a national audience—remember that the real story often unfolds over multiple conversations. Be patient. Be professional. Be persistent.

The follow-up interview is where Matthew Bovee’s investigative journalism principles become most apparent: verify everything, protect your sources, and never stop asking questions until you fully understand what happened.