There is no single definitive answer to this question.
Some journals may prefer you to report, some may forbid (or strongly discourage) reporting of such results. Some editors seem to feel that if results are not significant you should not say anything about them beyond that fact.
My own view is that the report/not report decision depends on things beyond significance: Chiefly on what Robert Abelson calls the MAGIC criteria:
Magnitude - how big is the effect? Big effects are more reportable than small ones
Articulation - How precisely stated is it? Precisely stated effects are more reportable
Generality - How general is it? General effects are more reportable than ones that apply only to some tiny group
Interestingness - Is it interesting? Will people in the field care?
Credibility - Is it believable? Credible effects are more reportable; incredible effects require incredible evidence.
For more on this, see my review of Abelson's book