Religion Unplugged believes in a diversity of well-reasoned and well-researched opinions. This piece reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent those of Religion Unplugged, its staff and contributors.

(OPINION) The New York Times offers daily doses of clever self-promotion — and often self-congratulation — in a feature called "Inside The Times: The Story Behind The Story." One of these carefully curated items last week, “How Reporters Interview Celebrities,” merits contemplation from other journalists.

Interviews are forever the linchpin of all original reporting. This opus tapped three specialists about dealing with show business personalities, a different challenge from typical interviewing. But some points have broad application.

Prepare thoroughly, which assures interview subjects of your professionalism and intent to conduct a knowledgeable discussion. Know what they have said in previous articles, which they may be anxious to explain or rebut. Inevitably, you'll have some prickly questions, and a savvy subject will expect this and be prepared, but don't ask them early on.

The best strategy is often “simply to listen.”

Those observations, of course, pertain to feature writing with advance notice and a reasonable amount of time for the conversation itself — as opposed to breaking news stories, when the reporter is scrambling and the interview must quickly get to the point.

How does this apply to the religion beat?

For one thing, the field has a few celebrities. Over the decades, The Guy has met with some, such as the Dalai Lama, Billy Graham, Mother Teresa and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — who was soon to become Pope Benedict XVI. In those situations, never ever give way to awe, whatever your private reactions. The Guy has observed this is a more likely temptation among people who do not work the religion beat.

Even religious leaders who are highly influential within their own spheres typically do not have to deal with inquisitive journalists. They may feel — often for good reason — that representatives of the mainstream media will bring little understanding of faith or harbor slight scorn toward this aspect of human experience.

An example of the sort of thing you can run into: During a TV interview — fortunately prerecorded, not live — spur of the moment, The Guy asked a crucial player in a hot religious dispute how much of his own money he had spent on the cause. The subject, who was jumpy to begin with, stormed out of the room as though I had accused him of child molesting, pursued by the flabbergasted producer. A figure who had more experience handling reporters would have mildly replied, “Well, you know, I'd rather not get into that.”

Naturally, we will often chat with nonfamous believers who have zero experience dealing with the media and may be equally edgy.

As a general observation, interviews under TV lights with cameras rolling are more tense than traditional pen-and-notebook reporting. Perhaps this, as much as the obvious clustering bias and business strategy, helps explain why Fox so rarely gets Democratic and liberal A-listers on camera — and the same for CNN and MSNBC with Republicans and conservatives.

How can you break through such wariness and get what you and your audience need?

Assuming this is not a spot situation, read up on your subject and prepare, prepare, prepare. It's a big plus if you are a regular on the beat and have cultivated a reputation for serious-minded and fair reportage over some years.

Sometimes, subjects will seek reassurance by quizzing reporters about their religious background or outlook. Once in a while, a bit of such info may become a problematic necessity, but it's almost always best to turn the question around. “I'm always happy to talk about my own beliefs with friends any time, but let me just say I follow an unbiased professional approach, and we're here to explore your own story, not mine.”

The Times piece got me thinking about a book you may find of use: “The Craft of Interviewing” by John Brady, a journalism teacher and industrious freelance who at the time (1977) was editor of Writer's Digest. It's still available in Kindle, Nook and paperback formats. Though Brady treated interviewing as a craft without which a writer is “crippled,” he said that with experience and talent, it can become an art.

Forty-five years later, this is a period piece with nostalgic anecdotes about forebears like James Reston, Mike Wallace and Barbara Walters and mentions of outdated technology (Typewriters! Pay phones!). Note that Brady was all about leisurely long-term projects for magazines and books, not the hurly-burly of daily newspapering or TV news. But here are a few pointers for all media in any era.

Once again: Prepare. You've probably heard the preacher's rule of one hour of work in the study per one minute in the pulpit. Brady's rule is more modest: at least 10 minutes of research per one minute of interviewing.

“Interviewing is the modest, immediate science of gaining trust, then gaining information.” With religion, scholars are very often crucial, and they may not only expect superficiality or bias but fear colleagues will view publicity as unprofessional. Here it's important to convey genuine interest and some grasp of your topic.

As before: “Innocuous, even trivial, questions at the outset can put the subject (and interviewer) at ease.”

With busy and important people, you'll likely have to deal with “press agents,” to use Brady's outdated term. They may be more protective or uncooperative than the actual subject, but they may be essential and can be helpful. In The Guy's experience, the worse ones are PR specialists hired from the outside, as opposed to insiders who work daily with the particular personality or organization. Worst are flacks who continually pester us persistently with nonstories they're paid to promote.

With a source who's been interviewed a fair amount, “What you want to ask are the questions he's never been asked before.” And the exact opposite. Ask questions as answered in the past and see how the current answers differ.

Never simply assume information in past articles was accurate. You may recycle myths and mistakes. Find out for yourself.

“Don't be afraid to say I don't understand” if you don't understand, one veteran advised.

Per the great A.J. Liebling, “The worst thing an interviewer can do is talk a lot about himself.” Also, “Keep your questions short.” And, “Don't interrupt your subject, unless his house is burning or you are running out of time.”

Always listen very carefully rather than being distracted by what you want to ask next. That's why you want to write out and consult a checklist of your gotta-ask questions.

End the interview by asking the subject about any important items you should have raised. After you ceremonially stash your notebook or the cameras are turned off, keep paying close attention. At these final moments, revealing remarks sometimes occur that you can write down once you're out the door.

“The reporter who believes all that he is told will not last long,” advised Neil MacNeil of The New York Times and Time.

A final word. Sometime-muckraker Jessica Mitford told Brady that to get that big interview, sometimes dishonesty is the best policy. The Guy totally disagrees. On the moral aspect, journalism should always be founded upon finding and telling truth, so its own honesty must be protected. On the practical side, you may need future cooperation from this source or his or her pals.

Richard Ostling is a former religion reporter for The Associated Press and former correspondent for TIME Magazine. This piece first appeared at Get Religion.