“No comment” allows others to shape public perception

The public increasingly distrusts sources who decline to comment on news stories when asked; this allows someone else to frame the coverage

More organizations are responding to questions from reporters they don’t like with a phrase such as “no comment.” “Source refusal is now the norm, not the exception,” according to a new study by the Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri, with help from SmithGeiger, a research firm.

The researchers polled “1,021 adults between the ages of 18 and 64 who consume news at least once per week on any platform” for one perspective. They also polled “201 current and former journalism professionals” for the second part.

How often does “no comment” happen?

The Reynolds report indicated is happening with increased frequency. Some “76% of journalism professionals report having experienced a refusal to speak from a politician, government official, or organization in the past three years.”

Further, the findings are more pronounced among respondents who are still doing reporting day-to-day. “Among current reporters specifically, that number rises to nine in ten.”

>>> Subscribe to receive thoughtful weekly blog posts by email

“No comment” adversely impacts trust in sources

The study, news and commentators frame this study as a threat to journalism and trust. The key concern is that readers might perceive “no comment” as a sign that a reporter didn’t put enough effort into eliciting a response.

That’s a valid concern for sure. Several previous surveys, including by Gallup and Pew, all point to years of declining trust. This survey had a similar finding on that point. More than three-quarters (77%) of adults say trust in news has waned – and 96% of journalists surveyed said the same.

However, it also has a direct impact on the sources that refuse to comment:

“When news consumers see or hear the phrase in a news story, 60% will question the story in some way with 39% believing the person or organization is hiding something, and 35% saying it makes them trust the official less.”

The report offers some verbatim comments from the adults that add context:

“It usually means they’re avoiding the question, hiding information, or unwilling to provide answers.”

“It means they feel pressure from the question, more to lose than gain from answering.”

“That the press wanted the truth and the politician chose not to give it.”

“That [no comment] means the reporter did a good job when an official says no comment. They know they are in the wrong.”

“No comment” adversely impacts trust in reporters

The lack of comment does seem to affect the perceived credibility of journalism, which is the primary point the report is trying to make:

“Most importantly 20% of consumers will trust a story less if it has ‘no comment’ featured.”

Again, open-ended comments tell us why:

“I feel like I’m not getting the whole story.”

“Everyone spins the news to fit their nerve so it’s not always the full truth.”

“They’re not telling the full truth about anything. The things we should know about are being withheld.”

The study recommends reporters include an indication of the actions they took to obtain a comment, such as the following:

“A list of the questions the journalist would have asked if the source had responded.”

“A link to a verifiable record of outreach attempts, including times, methods, and contact information.”

“And a link to a pattern of past refusals by the source, documenting a history of non-cooperation.”

“No comment” lets someone else shape the news

The biggest takeaway for PR, especially for B2B organizations, is that “no comment” allows someone else to frame the story. If you don’t comment, someone else will.

This has always been the case, but it seems now the case for commenting is stronger because:

a) the public thinks you are hiding something, and

b) news organizations are going to make it abundantly clear they gave you a chance to comment, which reinforces the perception formed by the first point.

While B2B organizations don’t have rancor or political reporting, nor the same accusations of media bias, they are increasingly facing issues that intersect with the general public. Privacy, security, tax incentives for moving business, and, of course, the growing resistance to the data center build-out that’s essential to AI are prime examples.

The phrase “no comment” isn’t going to stand up in coverage of a local council meeting where residents decry plans for a new data center. The public simply won’t trust you and will feel threatened. They are going to write letters to elected officials and eventually vote in line with their perceptions.

Valid exceptions exist, but are rare

There are some valid exceptions that can’t be avoided. Ongoing litigation is one good reason, and sources and methods in the case of national security are another. In those cases, “no comment” should be followed by a clear and honest explanation.

There are also times in my career when I’ve advised avoiding a specific reporter, based on their coverage history, where a reporter didn’t give one side of the story a fair shake. Yet in B2B, these are exceptional cases, and you have to be prepared to manage the second order of effects. In other words, you really need a strong case for this to hold up in public opinion.

Most B2B businesses don’t have these types of concerns. There simply isn’t a good reason to avoid the media. Don’t miss your chance to frame issues that are directly related to your business.

The full report is a good read for PR people if you want to understand the media environment. Getting their view will enable you to be better at your job. It’s freely available here: No Comment: The Importance of Transparency in American Journalism.

* * *