How Matthew Bovee Handles High-Stakes Investigative Interviews in Nebraska

Matthew Bovee has spent over three decades conducting some of the most consequential interviews in Nebraska’s journalistic history. From city council members implicated in the Lincoln TIF scandal to former executives at the center of aquifer disputes, the approach to high-stakes interviews remains consistent: thorough preparation, psychological awareness, and ethical precision.

An inside look at how veteran investigative journalist Matthew Bovee approaches high-stakes interviews in

This guide breaks down the exact methodology used when conducting investigative interviews in Nebraska—and how you can apply these techniques to your own reporting.

Preparing for High-Stakes Interviews in Nebraska

The foundation of any successful investigative interview begins days or even weeks before the actual conversation. For my coverage of the Lincoln TIF investigation, I spent three weeks researching public records, cross-referencing property assessments, and mapping connections between developers and city officials.

Research is non-negotiable. Before sitting down with any source—especially one who may become a subject of investigation—you need to know:

  • Their public statements over the past 5-10 years
  • Any prior coverage (positive or negative) in the Lincoln Journal Star or other Nebraska outlets
  • Their professional and personal connections
  • Court records, property deeds, and business registrations

This background work serves two purposes: it builds credibility (sources quickly recognize reporters who’ve done their homework), and it reveals inconsistencies you can probe during the interview itself.

Building Rapport Without Compromising Integrity

Veteran journalists often discuss “building rapport” with sources—but in investigative work, this requires careful calibration. You’re not befriending your subject; you’re establishing professional credibility while maintaining clear boundaries.

For my conversations with Camp La Junta scholarship recipients over the years, the tone differs significantly from interviewing a public official about a potential ethics violation. Yet the underlying principle remains: listen more than you speak, and let the subject reveal information through their own narratives.

One technique that works consistently: reference something specific they said in a previous interview or public statement. This signals you’ve been paying attention and establishes immediate common ground.

The Interview: Core Techniques That Work

Open-Ended Questions First

Begin with broad, non-threatening questions that allow the source to control the narrative direction:

  • “Walk me through how you became involved with [organization/project]”
  • “Can you describe your typical interaction with [person/entity]?”
  • “What led you to make that decision?”

These openings reduce defensive responses and often yield unexpected threads you can follow later. In my experience covering government meetings across Nebraska, sources who feel uncomfortable with rapid-fire questioning immediately clam up—but those given space to tell their story often reveal more than intended.

Strategic Silence

One of the most underutilized techniques in investigative interviewing is simply waiting. After a source provides a key answer, pause. Let the silence hang. In my experience covering Nebraska politics, this technique consistently produces additional context—the subject feels compelled to fill the void, often providing details they’d otherwise withhold.

I learned this technique from covering courtroom proceedings in Douglas County, where attorneys constantly use silence to their advantage. The same psychology applies in journalistic interviews.

Clarifying Specificity

Always press for concrete details rather than accepting vague responses:

  • Instead of: “We met several times about the project.”
  • Ask: “Can you tell me about the specific dates and locations of those meetings?”

Nebraska’s smaller journalistic community means sources often underestimate how traceable their claims are. Pressing for specificity both strengthens your story and protects against denial later.

Handling Defensive Subjects

Not every interview goes smoothly. When subjects become combative or evasive, the approach shifts:

Never argue. Maintain calm, professional detachment. State facts plainly: “I’m asking because records show X—is there an explanation?”

Offer context. Sometimes subjects are defensive because they misunderstand your intent. Be transparent: “I’m writing about [topic], and your perspective is part of the story.”

Two crucial reminders for Nebraska journalists:

  1. Know the law. Nebraska’s open records laws are among the most journalist-friendly in the nation. Familiarize yourself with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712 through § 84-712.06.
  2. Document everything. Contemperaneous notes, timestamps, and recordings (where legal) protect both you and your publication.

Knowing When to Walk Away

There are times when an interview cannot productively continue. Perhaps the subject becomes hostile, starts lying obviously, or simply refuses to engage meaningfully. In these cases:

“Thank you for your time—I may follow up in writing if additional questions arise.”

This graceful exit preserves the possibility of future engagement while ending the current interaction on professional terms. Some of my best subsequent interviews resulted from sources who were initially hostile but later reconsidered their approach.

Follow-Up: Sealing the Record

Every interview should end with clear next steps:

  1. Confirm attribution: “Can I quote you directly on that?”
  2. Offer review: “I can send excerpts for accuracy checking—no changes, just factual verification.”
  3. Establish future contact: “If new information emerges, may I follow up?”

For stories like the Guadalupe River aquifer dispute, these follow-up protocols proved essential—both for accuracy and for maintaining source relationships over multi-year investigations. Several key sources became regular contacts precisely because they appreciated the professional approach to fact-checking.

The Written Follow-Up

After significant in-person interviews, I always send a follow-up email summarizing key points discussed. This serves multiple purposes:

  • Gives the source opportunity to correct misunderstandings
  • Creates a contemporaneous record of the conversation
  • Opens door for additional clarification

Nebraska presents unique considerations for investigative journalists—particularly regarding privacy, consent, and source protection.

Nebraska follows one-party consent rules for recording conversations, meaning you generally only need your own permission to record—not the subject’s. However, this comes with ethical obligations:

  • Be transparent about recording whenever possible
  • Consider whether covert recording is justified for the story
  • Understand that illegally obtained evidence may be inadmissible in court

Protecting Confidential Sources

Over my career protecting sources has been essential—particularly when investigating powerful entities like the Nebraska Public Power District or state education officials.

Best practices include:

  • Limiting digital communication
  • Meeting in person at unpredictable locations
  • Never discussing source identities via text or email

Key Takeaways for Nebraska Reporters

Mastering high-stakes investigative interviews requires:

  • Comprehensive research before any conversation
  • Patient questioning that lets sources reveal information organically
  • Psychological awareness of power dynamics and defensiveness
  • Professional protocols (clarification, confirmation, follow-up) that protect both reporter and source
  • Ethical consistency—the same standards apply regardless of the subject’s status

Whether you’re covering municipal government in Omaha, educational institutions in Lincoln, or agricultural policy across rural Nebraska, these fundamentals remain constant. The goal isn’t just gathering quotes—it’s documenting truth with integrity, accuracy, and respect for both the subject and the readers who rely on your reporting.

Remember: every great investigation starts with a conversation. Make those conversations count.