How to interview perpetrators without losing your humanity — or theirs

The alternative to monsterfication is not moral neutrality. The act can be condemned without reducing the person who committed the act. That distinction is at the heart of the set of tools I have gathered to help journalists conduct humane interviews and publish nuanced stories about terrible crimes. This is because how you talk to people influences the amount of information they choose to give you.”

Håkon Høydal, Reuters Institute

Stephen Wright, a self-described “battle-hardened crime journalist,” spent 33 years covering crime for the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. In 2025, he reported that Peter Sullivan, imprisoned with a life sentence, was most likely innocent of murdering Diane Sindall in 1986. 

The U.K. press had dubbed Sullivan “the beast of Birkenhead,” a name Wright used, even in reporting his wrongful conviction. Talking about whether such labelling might have been harmful, Wright told me: “I’ve never really thought about that. This is the culture I’ve been brought up in... This is how we do it in the U.K.” 

It’s one example of how journalism has a problem: We are addicted to “monsters.”  The monster label — used explicitly or simply implied — is an extraordinarily efficient storytelling device. 

Click here to read more.