was unavailable for comment

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was unavailable for comment" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in journalism or reporting to indicate that a person or organization could not be reached for their opinion or statement on a particular issue. Example: "The spokesperson for the company was unavailable for comment regarding the recent allegations."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

58 human-written examples

Blockbuster was unavailable for comment.

Independent

Disney's was unavailable for comment.

Independent

He was unavailable for comment.

Independent

PwC was unavailable for comment.

Independent

ITV was unavailable for comment.

The Guardian

Arcadia was unavailable for comment.

The Guardian - Lifestyle

Lindros was unavailable for comment.

The New York Times - Sports

CoSport was unavailable for comment.

The Guardian - Sport

Marbury was unavailable for comment.

The New York Times - Sports

McIntyre was unavailable for comment.

The Guardian

GoGen was unavailable for comment.

The Guardian - Money

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "was unavailable for comment", ensure it accurately reflects the situation. Verify that reasonable attempts were made to contact the individual or organization before stating their unavailability.

Common error

Avoid stating that someone "was unavailable for comment" without first making a genuine attempt to reach them. Doing so can damage journalistic integrity and credibility.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was unavailable for comment" serves as a journalistic convention. Its function is to inform the reader that a specific individual or entity could not be reached to provide their perspective or statement on a particular matter. As confirmed by Ludwig, it's a correct and usable phrase.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

98%

Science

1%

Formal & Business

1%

Less common in

Academia

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was unavailable for comment" is a common and grammatically correct expression predominantly used in news and media contexts. As Ludwig AI confirms, the phrase indicates that a particular individual or organization could not be reached for a statement. While alternative phrases like "could not be reached for comment" or "declined to comment" exist, this specific wording is widely recognized and understood. The usage analysis highlights its neutral register and high frequency in journalistic reporting, ensuring transparency and objectivity.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

could not be reached for comment

Emphasizes the inability to establish contact for a statement.

was not available for a statement

Similar to the original, but uses 'statement' instead of 'comment'.

did not respond to requests for comment

Focuses on the lack of response to multiple attempts to solicit a statement.

declined to comment

Highlights the choice not to provide a statement.

refused to provide a statement

Indicates an active refusal to comment.

offered no comment

A brief way to say that someone did not comment.

could not be contacted for their reaction

Highlights the failure to get feedback.

had no comment at this time

Suggests a possible future comment, but none currently.

remained silent on the matter

Emphasizes the absence of any statement or reaction.

chose not to address the issue

Focuses on the deliberate avoidance of the topic.

FAQs

What does "was unavailable for comment" mean in a news article?

It indicates that the person or organization the reporter tried to contact could not be reached or did not provide a statement regarding the subject of the news report.

What can I say instead of "was unavailable for comment"?

You can use alternatives like "could not be reached for comment", "declined to comment", or "did not respond to requests for comment" depending on the specific context.

Is it biased to report that someone "was unavailable for comment"?

Reporting that someone "was unavailable for comment" is not inherently biased as long as it is factually accurate and reflects genuine attempts to solicit a statement. It's important to provide context and avoid implying guilt or wrongdoing simply because someone didn't comment.

How is "was unavailable for comment" different from "no comment"?

"Was unavailable for comment" indicates the person couldn't be reached. On the other hand, "no comment" means that person was contacted but actively declined to comment.