Illustration: John Darkow
The phrase meant to hold officials accountable is eroding trust in the reporters who write it
The relationship between American newsmakers, the press, and the public is breaking. That’s not a metaphor. It’s the opening conclusion of a major new national study conducted by the Reynolds Journalism Institute (RJI) in partnership with SmithGeiger Group.
The research, released in May 2026, examines one of the most consequential and underexamined dynamics in American media: what happens to journalism credibility when sources refuse to engage.
The scope of the problem
Source refusal is no longer an occasional frustration. It is now the defining condition of daily journalism. Among current reporters, 9 in 10 have received a no-comment response in the last three years. Among all journalism professionals surveyed, 95% say hostility toward the press from public figures and organizations has increased over the past five years. Only 11% of the general public say it has decreased.
The phrase “no comment” and its variants, “declined to respond” and “did not return messages,” appears in news stories every day. What this research reveals, for the first time with behavioral evidence, is what that phrase actually does to audiences when they encounter it.
What audiences see when they read “no comment”
The public interprets the phrase primarily through suspicion. 39% say their first reaction is that the source is hiding something. 35% say it makes them trust the official less. But here’s the finding that should concern every newsroom: 20% of audiences say they trust the story itself less when it contains the phrase, penalizing the reporter, not the source.
That’s not a small number. It means that 1 in 5 readers is walking away from a story with reduced confidence in the journalism, not the official who refused to cooperate.
What actually works
The study tested two versions of a television news story with more than 1,000 respondents. One used traditional “no comment” language. The other replaced it with a simple commitment: “the story will be updated when we hear back.” The proactive version outperformed on every credibility measure, including favorability, perceived transparency, and belief that the reporter made a genuine effort, regardless of the order in which audiences viewed them.
Separately, when asked which transparency tool would most improve their trust in a story, 39% of respondents chose a verifiable outreach log showing when, how, and whom a reporter contacted. The public doesn’t want to be told reporters tried. They want evidence they can evaluate themselves.
Why it matters beyond journalism
60% of the general public and 98% of journalism professionals say increasing hostility toward the press is a threat to democracy. Among adults aged 18 to 24, that number rises to 68%.
The stakes are real. When silence becomes a strategy, when officials deploy non-response not merely to avoid difficult questions but to delegitimize the act of asking, the accountability function that journalism serves in a democratic society is directly undermined.
SmithGeiger Group designed and executed the survey for this study, built the data infrastructure, and collaborated with RJI on the analytical framework and strategic interpretation of findings. Sam Walton, VP of Research Strategies, led the SmithGeiger team.
