Journalists are trained to press for answers, especially when their sources are politicians and others of public interest. But now they’re being shut down with increasing frequency.
The University of Missouri’s Reynolds Journalism Institute found that 90 per cent of the working reporters they surveyed “have received a no-comment response in the last three years, and they agree that politicians, government officials and other public figures in particular are exhibiting increased hostility toward the press.”
The survey, which was conducted in the first three months of this year in collaboration with the research firm SmithGeiger Group, also shone a light on several issues stemming from the no-comment trend. In addition to surveying current and former journalists, they recorded responses from 1,021 non-journalists who “consume news at least once per week on any platform.” Of these members of the public, 17 per cent said the inclusion of a no-comment response in a story makes them believe “the reporter did not try enough,” and 20 per cent “said they trust such stories less than others.”
Journalists can only report what they can verify and they are ethically required to offer right of reply to story subjects, especially when those stories are critical. Reporters must be able to show that they put sufficient time and effort into getting a subject’s response before their story is published – and, in general, the more serious the story and any accusations therein, the more time and effort a reporter should put into obtaining a response. In their request for comment, journalists should convey what their story is about, when it is scheduled for publication (if the story has been scheduled) and by when (day and time of day) they require a response from that source.
If a response is not provided by the stated deadline, that is stated in the published story, with phrasing along the lines of “this person (or organization) did not respond to requests for an interview.”
Does it matter how news interviews are conducted?
Lack of response can be another form of “no comment” and is sometimes done strategically.
“We will see people try to ‘front-run’ our reporting, where we have put the questions to them and they don’t answer us, but they go public with, ‘Here’s what The Times is going to say, and here’s why it’s all wrong,’ ” Mike Abrams, the New York Times’s deputy editor for trust, told RJI.
We cite the U.S. study because there is no equivalent data in Canada.
The Globe and Mail’s Secret Canada investigation showed the additional challenge this country’s freedom of information (FOI) system places on journalists. “We spent months negotiating access to data for our investigation, only to find that many public bodies sent us unreadable files – or, in the case of the province of Alberta, refused us entirely,” Globe journalists Tom Cardoso and Robyn Doolittle wrote in 2023.
The investigation uncovered “a culture of secrecy,” finding that public institutions suffered from “structural problems that incentivize the withholding of information.”
Globe journalists occasionally receive replies from sources only after their article has already been published, with a request to update the article online. Unless there are extenuating circumstances – such as scheduling or technical issues that prevented the source from receiving the request for reply far enough ahead of deadline, or delayed the journalist’s receipt of the reply – The Globe’s policy is to not update articles once they are final, generally at midnight on the day of first publication. Otherwise, sources might routinely use this tactic to tailor their responses.
Major Garrett, a correspondent with CBS News, told RJI he sees this as fallout from the public-relations framework within which public figures now operate and communicate in an effort to control the narrative. “Fewer and fewer people are now empowered to say anything on the record, even though they might be directly involved in it. So, the no-comment thing is reflective of that impulse. They want to have one story, and they want to put that story through an internal process before it goes out,” he said.
What happens when public figures sue news organizations?
The bad news for sources, according to the RJI survey, is that no-comment responses taint the public’s perception of them, as well. The survey found “39% believe the phrase indicates the source – whether it’s a person or an organization – is hiding something.”
A number of journalists who cover U.S. politics have seen their access to President Donald Trump and his administration severely restricted. At the same time, Mr. Trump and other politicians are finding ways to speak directly to the public, rather than through journalists – Mr. Trump by way of his Truth Social, for example, and Andrzej Duda, who launched a popular YouTube show while serving as Poland’s president. The Reuters Institute 2026 Digital News Report described such moves as “politicians going direct to audiences as news creators.”
So, what can journalists do, given decreasing access to essential sources, other than reporting that the sources didn’t respond?
As has always been standard practice, journalists seek out multiple sources, who provide the information needed to report on an issue from different angles. In other words, that one source who won’t comment is unlikely to make or break a well-reported story. And if there isn’t enough information without that no-comment source, a story will be held and reporting will continue behind the scenes.
In addition, Fernanda Camarena, a faculty member at the U.S.-based Poynter Institute, which conducts journalism research and training, argues for making the lack of response a bigger part of the story, by explaining, as she told RJI, “Here is what the public still does not know because this office declined to answer.”
“That kind of transparency would be much more useful than a flat ‘could not be reached for comment,’ ” continued Ms. Camarena, who co-authored a 2024 report titled Shut Out: Strategies for good journalism when sources dismiss the press. “Otherwise, we do a disservice to the audience and give the sources who shut us down a free pass.”