Public figures responding to journalists’ inquiries with “no comment” is more common than ever, according to the results of a May 2026 survey from the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the Missouri School of Journalism.
The 2026 survey asked current and former journalists, along with members of the public their thoughts on “no comment” responses from sources.
Most news consumers and journalism professionals agreed the press has experienced a surge in hostility from public officials and organizations, the survey found. Some 76 percent of journalism professionals surveyed said they have received a “no comment” response from a politician, government official or organization in the past three years.
According to the survey, 39 percent of news consumers believe “no comment” means the source, whether it’s a person or an organization, is hiding something, said Sam Walton, vice president of research strategies at SmithGeiger Group, which partnered with the Reynolds Journalism Institute to conduct the study.
Panelists explain how journalists can circumvent “no comment” statements in their stories. Photo by Paisley Huang.
“It is impacting your credibility, not the source’s credibility alone. It is impacting your delivery of the news and their perception of the news,” Walton said.
Journalists should find alternative ways to address “no comment,” Walton said. Research shows that a record of outreach attempts shows how many times journalists have contacted a source helps build credibility. Other approaches include a list of questions journalists would have asked if the source had responded, along with a pattern of past refusals.
These approaches help journalists earn reader trust in their work of holding public officials accountable, Walton said.
Ellen Gerst, editor of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, said her newsroom has started detailing efforts to obtain comments by telling readers how many times reporters contacted sources and how much time they gave sources to respond.
For example, Gerst said when covering a local attorney who faced fraud allegations, one of her reporters approached the source at a restaurant and asked for a response. He ended up documenting the interaction instead of simply dropping “no comment” in the story.
Even after the article is published, journalists should let readers know the story will be updated once sources respond, which keeps the story active and puts pressure on sources, said Jon King, editor-in-chief of Michigan Advance.
“‘No comment’ is doing a lot of work in hiding this lack of transparency on the part of public officials,” said King. “So when we show our work, I think we can sort of break through that.”
Reporters might feel reluctant to press the public information office for a response in fear of negatively impacting their relationship with public officials’ communications team. King said journalists must remember that they represent their readers.
“We only just started this, but I’m really confident that over time we will start to see a change in behavior on the part of the public officials,” King said.
Featured photo by Paisley Huang.