A journalist writing a health feature at six in the evening wants an expert by nine the next morning. They post a request, and within a few hours they have fifty replies, most of them generic. The few that get quoted tend to share three traits: they answer the question asked, they arrive early and they make the journalist's checking easy. A doctor who builds a small routine around these three traits can be quoted regularly without spending a day on it.
This article is for doctors, and for the practice managers or communications staff who support them, who want to respond to journalist queries. It covers where such queries come from today, a workflow that fits inside an hour, four reply templates, how to format a credential line and what to decline. The audience is global because many requests come from international outlets, but the guidance is written for Indian practitioners who are subject to NMC rules.
Where journalist queries come from now
The best-known service of this kind is HARO, Help A Reporter Out. Its history matters because older advice online is out of date. Cision shut down its successor service, and in April 2025 Featured.com announced that it had acquired HARO from Cision, saying in its press release that HARO would stay free for journalists and sources, funded by newsletter advertising, and return to delivering daily opportunities by email.
Other platforms exist. Qwoted describes itself as a platform that connects journalists with expert sources, and its pages offer free sign-up with details on a separate pricing page. Beyond platforms, requests also appear through direct approaches from reporters who have found a doctor's published work or professional profile, and through professional bodies and university press offices that maintain expert lists.
Platform terms, fees and journalist mix change often. We could not verify current details for every service, so check each platform's own terms before registering, and treat any ranking of platforms from a marketing blog as a starting point only.
Rules first: what an Indian doctor may do
The NMC's October 2026 Guidelines on Ethical Advertising and Public Communication apply to registered practitioners in India. Four provisions matter for expert sourcing.
- Clause 8.2(iii) allows lectures or talks on public health and disease for public awareness through television, radio and electronic media, in the practitioner's own name and designation, without promoting the employer organisation.
- Clause 5.1 allows educational content provided it does not promote personal practice, solicit patients or get monetised through promotional marketing.
- Clause 8.1(ii) bars self-promotion and permitting use of name, image, voice or endorsement to promote services or products.
- Explanation III in clause 3.2 expects practitioners publishing electronic media posts to disclose their name, qualifications, registration status and registration number.
The sensible reading is that answering a journalist's question with general educational information is within the spirit of these provisions. Promoting your clinic through the answer, asking for a link to your booking page or being quoted endorsing a product is not. If a request carries a commercial angle, such as "which supplement is best", decline. For rules outside India, such as those for doctors in the UAE or the USA, check the local regulator. Our guide to the 2026 changes in India has a fuller summary.
The one-hour workflow
Speed matters because journalists usually work to a deadline measured in hours. Prepare in advance and the work in the hour is small.
Before any request arrives (one-off, about two hours):
- Write a bio block of 40 words, a longer one of 100 words, and keep your registration details in a text file.
- Write down five topics you are willing to comment on and five you will refer elsewhere.
- Agree with your practice manager how to forward queries and who checks them.
- Create a fact sheet for each topic with two or three accurate points and the source for each.
When a request arrives:
| Minutes | Step | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 5 | Triage: is this in my area, is it educational, does it have a commercial angle, what is the deadline | Go or decline |
| 5 to 20 | Draft: answer the actual question in plain language, using the fact sheet | A 120 to 200 word reply |
| 20 to 40 | Check: facts, sources, any patient detail, any claim that goes beyond general information | Clinician-checked reply |
| 40 to 50 | Format: subject line, credential line, one-sentence offer of a call | Ready to send |
| 50 to 60 | Send and log | A record of the reply |
Most requests are not suitable. Decline within the first five minutes and do not draft anything you will not send. A fast "no" saves time for the requests that fit.
Four reply templates
Adapt these; do not copy them word for word, because journalists notice boilerplate.
1. The mechanism explainer. Use when the journalist asks "why does this happen".
The short answer is [one sentence]. In more detail: [two or three sentences on the mechanism, in plain words]. The main caveat is [limit of the evidence or individual variation]. I am happy to clarify by phone.
2. The myth correction. Use when the request is built around a popular belief.
This belief is common, but the evidence points the other way. [One sentence on what is believed.] [Two sentences on what is established, with a source named.] What I would tell a patient in general terms is [safe, general advice]. This is general information, not advice for any individual.
3. The data comment. Use when the journalist has a study or figure.
Reading this study, three points stand out: [point 1], [point 2], [point 3]. The main limitation is [sample, design or setting]. I would be cautious about [overreading]. I have no commercial interest in this research.
4. The "what to look for" practical answer. Use for consumer features.
Three signs worth taking seriously are [A], [B] and [C]. Anyone with [urgent symptom] should seek urgent care and not wait. Beyond that, the right step depends on the individual, which is a matter for their own doctor.
All four give the journalist something quotable in a sentence and a caveat that protects the doctor. None mentions the doctor's own clinic or services.
