You see it all the time: A reporter seeks a response on a newsworthy topic, and the source refuses to comment. In a world in which journalists are often viewed as self-righteous and arrogant, reporting a no-comment as a refusal serves only to feed that narrative.
Perhaps the source declined to comment or wouldn’t comment or just said – completely unhelpfully – “I can’t help you with that.” But “refused” to comment? That’s the only description that’s unquestionably wrong, ethically and quite possibly factually.
The framing implies that the source had a duty to comment and was being evasive or downright obstinate by “refusing” to do so. No one has a duty to speak to the press, though some journalists apparently think they do. The reporter is free to ask the question, and interviewees are free to decide it’s not in their best interest to engage. There may be any number of good reasons not to talk to the press:
– a lawyer or employer has discouraged or even forbidden going on the record, not a circumstance that the source can always share with the reporter;
– the interview topic is the subject of litigation, something that the reporter may not even know;
– the source is trying to avoid being trolled or doxxed, an increasing concern these days when people are thrust into the spotlight;
– the source is concerned that commenting may create problems for a colleague, employer, friend, or family member;
– the source isn’t sure that the journalist can be trusted to report a comment accurately, fairly, and in context.
Given all the possibilities, the reporter typically has insufficient grounds to infer from a no-comment that the subject has done something wrong or has something to hide. Holding a no-comment against a source – and steering the story more negatively as a result – is a temptation we have to resist in the interest not just of fairness but of accuracy.
“Declined to comment” and “wouldn’t comment” are both factual and non-judgmental and both work fine. If the subject explains on the record why he or she is declining to comment — citing, for example, litigation or company policy — it’s always good to add the reason. If the reason doesn’t hold up to scrutiny – the source’s claim that a gag order is in place just isn’t true, for instance – that inaccuracy should be noted too.
If a source is trying to be clever and to give you nothing to work with – as in, “I can’t help you with that” – it’s fine to quote the unilluminating non-comment and let readers draw their own inferences.