Why ‘no comment’ is still a comment

We’re all familiar with the term “when approached, X said ‘no comment’”, reported in news stories or broadcasts, and usually in the context of a contentious story or crisis. Although we also see “no comment” employed in even benign situations, in response to straightforward  journalist requests.

(Worse, a Columbia Journalism Review study of news items in May 2014 found the phrase “did not respond to a request for comment” appeared 728 times. The same search ten years later produced 3,616 results – an almost 400% increase!)

We understand the instinct to shut a conversation down if it’s getting a little uncomfortable, or if you’re uncertain of facts, or indeed whether you’re able to share them at all. It would appear to be a neat, firm, and clear statement – or at least that’s how it might feel. In reality, it leaves the door open to interpretation, rarely flattering, often implying guilt and pulling up the drawbridge on any further dialogue, handing the narrative to someone else.

Media training 101 will tell you that ‘no comment’ should never be an option, whatever the circumstances. In fact, UK guidance from the CIPR puts ‘no comment’ at the top of its phrases to avoid in a crisis. The simple option? If you can’t comment, explain why. 

The scenarios where you may feel compelled to press the ‘no comment’ button are myriad, from active, unfolding crises, to litigious claims against personnel, or simply not being briefed properly, then being caught on the hop by a journalist’s phone call. 

The key is, don’t panic, be prepared where possible, and if not have fall-back responses that are cooperative, calm and factual. You don’t have to spill everything, but you should always say something.