The job of a journalist is often a continuous tug of war — not just a single rope, but many, some requiring hard pulling. One rope may be the struggle to obtain public records, and another may be searching for an elusive source with information. The one that may require a tighter grip is when public officials are pulling on the other end, unwilling to respond to questions, except with “no comment.” More journalists report that when they do comment, some are even hostile.
The people at Reynolds Journalism Institute recently noticed an alarming increase in this trend. The Institute, under the leadership of Executive Director Randy Picht, conducted a research study with its co-partner, Smith Geiger Group, a research company. (They collaborated in 2024 for a study on solutions to journalism burnout.) They wanted to understand this issue in more depth and share possible solutions with all news and media organizations.
“This wasn’t at such an epidemic level in the past. It was accepted that some people would make a statement, while others wouldn’t. Now, it seems to be across the board. While thinking about this problem and reading the news, it was suddenly, ‘Wow, look who’s not commenting now,’” Picht said.
A survey was launched in January that included both people in the news industry and 1,000 members of the public. Picht indicated that a complete report with data and analysis may be available soon.
Smith Geiger Group conducts quarterly research projects among American news consumers to track trends, such as general trust in the media. According to Sam Walton, senior director, Research Studies at Smith Geiger, trust has deteriorated and accelerated post-COVID.
“I would say ‘no comment’ is not in and of itself the problem. It is the shift in perceptions that is becoming the problem. The impetus of the research was to understand the perspectives of the American public and those working in the new industry regarding ‘no comment,’ press hostility and hostility towards the press. The goal is to learn how journalists can elevate the level of transparency and clarity to maintain trust with the public, not necessarily determine how to make politicians talk,” Walton said.
Walton shared several of the survey questions:
The study aims to confirm whether the public thinks journalists aren’t doing their jobs thoroughly when they can’t obtain answers from public officials.
“We asked the public, and we’re asking journalists, what has the biggest impact on your belief that journalists did their due diligence. The public wants to know that they work hard enough to get a quote without misrepresenting or underrepresenting a public official,” Walton said.
Picht and Walton are confident the study will lead to solutions, though news organizations may need to double down on transparency to reverse public perceptions. The professor who oversees the professional news outlets at the Missouri School of Journalism shared an idea that journalists might use.
“His idea is to include a box with the story that states a public official opted not to talk with the journalist and include the questions that were asked. If the public official knew this box would appear in the story, the official is more likely to acquiesce eventually and answer questions,” Picht said.
Bob Sillick has held many senior positions and served a myriad of clients during his 47 years in marketing and advertising. He has been a freelance/contract content researcher, writer, editor and manager since 2010. He can be reached at bobsillick@gmail.com.
1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
teaster
Just read the headline.... and the President keeps talking and divulging and all you "journalists" can do is get mad. You're all idiots. Sorry... I don't have time to be more eliquent. OPEN YOUR EYES
Tuesday, April 14 Report this