Public figures refusing to comment for news stories has become the norm, a survey from the University of Missouri’s Reynolds Journalism Institute finds.
Nine in 10 reporters surveyed said they’ve received a “no comment” response in the last three years, as politicians, government officials, and other public figures have become less willing to engage with reporters.
Audiences were also surveyed. Some 39% believe “no comment” indicates the source — whether it’s a person or an organization — is hiding something.
The study suggests that journalists may be better served by explaining their efforts to obtain information rather than simply reporting that a source had “no comment.”
“It’s clear that saying someone ‘had no comment’ doesn’t cut it anymore,” said Randy Picht, executive director of the Reynolds Journalism Institute. “We need a new approach that shows the public how hard reporters are working to collect the facts.”
For an experiment within the survey, researchers showed audiences two different versions of a TV news story. One included the phrase “no comment,” while the other said: “The story will be updated when we hear back.” Audiences found the latter version more credible.
Major Garrett, chief Washington correspondent for CBS News, said the PR infrastructure around public figures disengages them from the journalistic process.
“Fewer and fewer people are now empowered to say anything on the record, even though they might be directly involved in it,” he said. “So, the ‘no comment’ thing is reflective of that impulse.”
Sources who require reporters to go through their media relations teams “want to have one story, and they want to put that story through an internal process before it goes out,” Garrett said.
Fernanda Camarena, a journalist and faculty member at the Poynter Institute, suggested that instead of telling the audience that a source had no comment, reporters can say: “Here is what the public still does not know because this office declined to answer.”
Illustration: Dzianis Vasilyeu
