Give reader more than "no comment"

TheStreet.com media critic Marek Fuchs wishes that more business journalists would give more explanation to the “no comment” that they receive from companies.

In discussing a “no comment” in a recent Barron’s article, Fuchs wrote, “Unlike Barron’s, as a matter of policy, I can’t ever let a ‘No Comment’ pass. As an investor, neither should you.

“There is now a huge dangling thread. Crocs is a public company, and Barron’s is one of the most renowned and revered publications. Crocs wouldn’t talk? Well, why? Under what conditions? There are insights to be gained in knowing — either about Crocs or the way the business media works.

“Did Crocs specifically refuse to talk about the insider selling? Hmm. Was the refusal specific to Barron’s? Why? The author, Christopher C. Williams? Again, why? Has Crocs gone to the mattresses entirely, which would be a most troublesome indicator for a public company?

“Or was Williams running late and merely called Crocs too soon before deadline, not giving them enough time to get back to him? Should he have said, ‘Crocs could not be reached for comment. They were called several hours before deadline,’ instead? That, of course, would have put the shoemaker in a more positive light, and the journalist for the weekly publication, where there is a long lead time, in a less positive one.”

Read more here.