No Comment

Disclosing who you attempted to contact for a story is good practice. But there is an art to handling the "no comment" properly within the story.

Here are a few tips to make this easier.

1. When writing a story that involves controversy, and the person or persons at the center of that controversy don't want to talk to you, include the "no comment" paragraph in the first likely place you would have quoted him or her. Do not wait to the end of the story to include it. A copy editor may cut the end of the story, or the reader may not bother to go any further than the jump.

2. When an important source is unavailable for the story, disclose how much effort went into trying to reach the source. Here is a poor way to write that seems to make its way into too many stories: "John Doe was not immediately available for comment." People rarely are immediately available. And this does not tell me if you made multiple attempts, or gave up after the first try, which a reader may infer from that statement. Try something like this instead: "As of press time, numerous messages by the Daily Bugle to reach John Doe for comment were unreturned."

3. Watch your word choice. To write "John Doe refused to comment" implies a combative or adversarial response, almost as if the person was purposely trying to avoid commenting or hiding something. If that is indeed what is happening, then feel free to write "refused," but it helps to include some context as well: "Joe Doe refused to comment, stating that his lawyer has advised him to not speak to the media," or "John Doe refused to comment, slamming the door on a Daily Bugle reporter." If a potentially relevant source simply doesn't want to answer your questions or participate as a source in a story, it is probably better to write "John Doe declined to be interviewed for this story." Sometimes potential sources are simply too busy for an interview, or they have been misquoted in the past and don't trust the media. That is their choice. Remember, no one is obligated to talk to the media. And it is unfair to characterize that decision as a refusal.

4. It is not uncommon to work on a story involving controversy that has several willing sources representing one side and only one or maybe even no sources representing the other. This often occurs with lawsuit stories, or stories involving complaints, grievances and other litigation against large institutions, such as colleges and universities. Do not feel obligated to hold the story until you can get equal comment from the non-commenting side; it's likely you won't get much comment. Yes, you have an obligation to attempt to get the comments, and then you should disclose to the reader how hard you tried and the reasons behind the party's decision to not offer comment. Make sure you ask the source why he or she is not willing to speak. Then publish the reason. The news value of the story dictates when you need to publish. If you can only get sources representing one side, and you determine it is in the public interest to print the story sooner rather than later, then do so. NOTE: You can always find other sources that could at least talk in general about the issues, such as scholars or experts with knowledge of similar cases. This way you can at least try to add some fairness or balance to the story in the principal parties are not willing to go on record.