Evaluate Journalist candidates across 4 weighted areas: method and rigour, real casework, interpretation and judgement, and reporting and testimony. Method and rigour leads at 35%, so check how they verify: two-source rules, FOI or public records requests, document trails, reverse image and metadata checks, and what they do when a single source. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
For method and rigour, look for evidence the candidate names verification steps used on a specific story, including records requested, documents obtained, and claims cut for failing corroboration. For real casework, look for evidence the candidate cites datelined pieces with real reporting effort behind them: contacts cultivated, doors knocked, scenes witnessed firsthand, not rewritten releases.
Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Method and rigour
35% weight
Check how they verify: two-source rules, FOI or public records requests, document trails, reverse image and metadata checks, and what they do when a single source recants.
Evidence to listen for
Follows and can justify an established methodology
Understands contamination, bias, and chain of custody as they apply to the field
Knows the limits of their techniques and says so
Documents procedure so results are reproducible and defensible
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Careless method; unaware of contamination, bias, or procedural integrity.
2
Needs Improvement
Knows procedures but applies them inconsistently; gaps in documentation.
3
Satisfactory
Sound standard practice; less certain outside familiar techniques.
4
Very Good
Rigorous and well documented; understands the limits of each method.
5
Excellent
Names verification steps used on a specific story, including records requested, documents obtained, and claims cut for failing corroboration.
02
Evaluation factor
Real casework
25% weight
Probe published bylines: beat covered, outlet, story length, deadline pressure, and one piece they broke ahead of competitors rather than aggregated from wires.
Evidence to listen for
Brings specific cases, sites, or projects rather than general description
States their own role and what they personally handled
Can describe an ambiguous or degraded case and how they proceeded
Knows what happened to the work afterwards
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No hands-on casework; experience is entirely academic.
2
Needs Improvement
Limited exposure; cannot describe their own contribution clearly.
3
Satisfactory
Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.
4
Very Good
Specific cases with clear personal scope and outcomes.
5
Excellent
Cites datelined pieces with real reporting effort behind them: contacts cultivated, doors knocked, scenes witnessed firsthand, not rewritten releases.
03
Evaluation factor
Interpretation and judgement
25% weight
Assess editorial judgement: weighing public interest against harm, handling anonymous sources and off-the-record material, spotting a spun leak, and knowing when a story is not yet standing up.
Evidence to listen for
Separates what the evidence shows from what they infer
States confidence levels and what would change their conclusion
Comfortable saying the result is inconclusive
Handles pressure to reach a preferred conclusion without bending
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Overstates findings; no separation of evidence from inference.
2
Needs Improvement
Reaches conclusions the evidence does not support; uneasy with uncertainty.
3
Satisfactory
Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.
4
Very Good
Clearly separates evidence from inference and states confidence unprompted.
5
Excellent
Describes a story held, killed, or reframed after evidence shifted, and explains the defamation or privacy exposure behind that call.
04
Evaluation factor
Reporting and testimony
15% weight
Test writing and delivery: nut graf construction, house style, CMS filing, right-of-reply handling, corrections policy, and how they held up under legal read or complaint.
Evidence to listen for
Writes findings that a non-specialist can act on
Has presented or defended work to an external audience: court, client, review board, publication
Withstands challenge without overclaiming or retreating
Keeps records that hold up to scrutiny
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot communicate findings; records would not withstand review.
2
Needs Improvement
Reporting is unclear or incomplete; avoids external scrutiny.
3
Satisfactory
Adequate reports; limited experience defending work externally.
4
Very Good
Clear reporting and real experience presenting to an external audience.
5
Excellent
Files clean copy to length on deadline, has survived a pre-publication legal read, and handles corrections and complaints without defensiveness.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Journalist
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
Can you describe your experience with breaking news coverage?
02
Can you provide an example of a challenging story you covered?
03
What are your strategies for investigative journalism?
04
How do you ensure the accuracy of your reporting?
05
What is your process for fact-checking and verifying the information you report?
