Journalists are encountering increasing obstacles in obtaining comments from public figures, with a growing number of sources responding with "no comment," a trend that is prompting concerns within the industry. A recent survey by the University of Missouri’s Reynolds Journalism Institute (RJI), conducted in early 2026 in partnership with SmithGeiger Group, found that 90 percent of working reporters have received no-comment responses over the past three years. The study also highlighted a rising hostility from politicians, government officials, and other public figures toward the press.
The survey incorporated feedback not only from current and former journalists but also from 1,021 members of the public who consume news regularly. Of these respondents, 17 percent indicated that seeing a no-comment response in news stories leads them to believe the reporter did not make sufficient efforts to obtain a quote, while 20 percent reported a decrease in trust toward such stories. Additionally, 39 percent view no-comment replies as indicative of sources hiding information.
Journalistic ethics call for reporters to offer a right of reply, particularly in stories involving serious issues or accusations. Journalists typically inform sources about the subject of a story, its publication timeline, and a clear deadline for response. Failure to receive a reply by that deadline is usually noted within the article to maintain transparency. However, lack of response is often a strategic choice by sources, who sometimes bypass journalists to present their version of events directly to the public—a practice seen in political figures like former U.S. President Donald Trump, who uses social media platforms such as Truth Social, and Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, who hosts a popular YouTube show. The Reuters Institute’s 2026 Digital News Report described this as “politicians going direct to audiences as news creators.”
Mike Abrams, deputy editor for trust at The New York Times, described a tactic where sources decline to answer journalists before publicly pre-empting stories to control the narrative. CBS News correspondent Major Garrett attributed the rise in no-comment responses to tighter public relations controls on messaging, explaining that fewer individuals are now authorized to speak on the record, reinforcing the practice of withholding comments until an internal process has vetted the message.
In Canada, journalists face additional challenges linked to limited transparency and access under the country’s freedom of information frameworks. An investigation by Globe reporters revealed structural issues leading to data being withheld or provided in inaccessible forms. The Globe’s policy generally precludes updating articles after publication, except in exceptional circumstances, to avoid enabling sources to delay responses in order to craft tailored replies.
To address the difficulties posed by unresponsive sources, journalists continue to seek multiple perspectives to ensure comprehensive coverage, recognizing that a single no-comment source rarely undermines an entire story. Fernanda Camarena of the Poynter Institute advocates for greater transparency in reporting when sources decline to comment, suggesting that journalists explicitly note the information that remains unknown due to lack of response. She argues this approach prevents giving sources a “free pass” and keeps audiences informed about the limits of available information.
As the media landscape evolves, these developments underline the complexities facing journalists striving to maintain credibility and accountability in the face of diminishing access to key public figures.