From news editor Daniel Silliman: If you’ve ever seen reporters in a movie, you’ve probably seen someone shout “no comment” at them. But the phrase is increasingly rare in real-life journalism. These days, people are less likely to refuse to answer than they are to just ignore a reporter’s questions. 

Reporters still want to let readers know that we asked, though, which is why we so often deploy that other journalism classic: “could not be reached for comment.”

If you look for it, you will notice some subtle variations of the phrase. Each is meant to signal something to the reader. “Could not be reached for comment” by itself indicates the reporter thinks the person had a reasonable amount of time to respond—maybe a day, maybe more—but the lack of response is hard to interpret. 

“Could not immediately be reached for comment” means the story was written and published quickly. Honestly, the person might have responded if given more time, but the reporter had a deadline.

“Did not respond to repeated requests for comment” usually means the reporter is annoyed. It’s frustrating when people don’t respond. Some days you really miss those simpler times when people would just shout, “No comment!”