Communicating status of a Sprint: Product Owner or Scrum Master?

If there's sufficient transparency over the artifacts, why is status reporting necessary?

That said, I would say that the entire team - the Scrum Master, the Product Owner, and the Development Team - are responsible for ensuring that the status of a Sprint is communicated.

One of the Scrum Master's services is to help "employees and stakeholders understand and enact Scrum and empirical product development". I would place the burden of understanding what information stakeholders need and either explaining how to understand the various Scrum artifacts to get that information onto the Scrum Master. However, if there is a different need from a stakeholder that isn't adequately addressed by the Scrum artifacts, understanding that need and working with the team to deliver on it and make it transparent is also part of the Scrum Master's responsibility.

A responsibility of the Product Owner is to ensure that "the Product Backlog is visible, transparent, and clear to all". The Scrum Master can work with the Product Owner to make sure that the Product Backlog is understandable by stakeholders, through some combination of educating stakeholders on the Product Backlog or by educating the Product Owner on effective techniques for building, managing, and visualizing the Product Backlog.

The Sprint Backlog belongs solely to the Development Team. They have a responsibility to ensure that the Sprint Backlog is continuously up to date. Like with the Product Owner, the Scrum Master can work with both stakeholders and the Development Team to make sure all parties understand the Sprint Backlog and are building, managing, and visualizing it effectively.

Overall, I would put the burden of communication onto the Product Owner and Development Team, with the Scrum Master helping to make sure that they all understand what to communicate, why it's communicated, and to help the recipient of the communication understand what they are seeing.

Whilst the Scrum artifacts should bring transparency over the status of the Sprint and the work to be accomplished within it, I am curious to know which role in Scrum would be responsible for communicating that status to the stakeholders or customers.

Sprint status:

• A Sprint Goal X has been agreed with the Product Owner and committed to.
• There are n days left.
• The Sprint has not been cancelled.

If stakeholders require different information about the status of a Sprint, why?

Sprint status:

• A Sprint Goal X has been agreed with the Product Owner and committed to.
• There are n days left.
• The Sprint has not been cancelled.

If stakeholders require different information about the status of a Sprint, why?

@Ian Mitchell, Fair point! I don't think I can debate that if asked that way. I guess what I am asking is, if some stakeholder for whatever reason doesn't have visibility into the progress of the work or if some other sort of communication needs to take place regarding the work being undertaken in the Sprint, then which role should be responsible for communicating that? PO or SM? 

I ask this only because I see many SM's doing this and it reminds me of a Project Manager. Just trying to make a case on what the SM should and should not do. Once again, not saying that the SM can't do this for example in the absence of the PO or if they have the knowledge.

Simply put, if it's about the product's function, value, progress, etc., the Product Owner is a more suitable person to communicate with stakeholders or customers.

If it is about the Scrum Framework, or related communication rules, role descriptions, etc., then the Scrum Master should be responsible for communication.