Digital Communication in the Age of Immediacy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting theoretical article that presents the evolution of media ecology via the strategy deployed in the reinvention of the media industry, from traditional media to the age of digital communication.

In my opinion, this article can be a significant contribution to the journal, as a general overview for researchers looking into the media development towards the digital age.

Below, the authors can find some suggestions that can help them strengthen this manuscript prior to publication.

First, a minor suggestion… instead of the term ‘conventional media’ (e.g., p.2, line 51) I would suggest the use of ‘traditional media’ inline with the term used later on in the manuscript as well as other relevant studies.

Second, the abstract reads a bit as the first part of the introduction instead of a summary of the manuscript. In addition, what is the main aim of this study? This could be added in the Introduction section. Furthermore, a short description of the other sections of the study that follow could be added in the Introduction, as this is a theoretical article and it could help the reader better understand the analysis that follows.

Most important, the authors present a coherent and well structured analysis of media development towards the era of digital communication. However, they may want to take into consideration that the technological development of the media took place in different paces around the world (e.g., differences between South and North Europe) due to political, economic, social, ...etc...,  factors. As such, the authors may want to acknowledge these differences and expand a bit on the topic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for this innovative paper – that I much appreciate reading it. Although is an interesting piece of research, the lack of engagement with a precise research question and scholarship is evident. However, this can be re-arranged by introducing more clearly the works of other scholars in this discussion – if not is a rather descriptive/historical manuscript. Therefore, I would like to stress out some of the issues (minor and major) that I observe.

·      While the authors state some of the major works in the field I still find that the article is under-theorised in terms of digital communication theory (including as mentioned by the authors radio, cinema, media, etc) – or immediacy which seems both as major concepts concerning this work. This refers to many concepts - central to the research question - not sufficiently explained or theoretically substantiated, like ‘mediation, ‘digital literacy’, ‘media ecology’, ‘platforms’, ‘and immediacy’. In addition, a range of crucial authors and are missing (Draper & Turow, Solove, Bucher, Petronio, Nissenbaum, Cohen, van Dijck, Couldry & Mejias, etc.). Finally, some key authors are only scantly mentioned, yet would require much more elaboration.

·      I consider that stating that the manuscript and the analysis contribute to “research and study of media ecology by understanding the strategy deployed in the reinvention of the media industry and the behavior of agents in the construction of the notion of reality in the collective imagination” is not addressed. I suggest authors find  a better angle/more precise for their research.

·      Part 3 should be more pointed out – at the beginning of the manuscript with precise examples from the scholarship in each sub-section. If not is very descriptive and general which points out a narration rather as a story telling than a research manuscript. Same for part 4 – examples and discussion of the adequate scholarship should be more obvious!

·      Part 5 – authors should point out the current debates pointing out the role of platforms/algorithms etc .

No comments!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is a well organized discussion of a media ecologies trajectory that is very familiar to most who have spent the past few decades in media studies. To some extent, this article feels like a textbook chapter. Nonetheless, I feel like that is a breath of fresh air. I could assign this article to my university students. And I really enjoy the crossover between the iberoamerican and anglophone discourse communities apparent in the bibliography. This article ends on Scolari's metaphor of snack culture.

It is clear to me that this was written by second language speakers. I have found small blemishes but nothing that interrupts the presentation of the data, nor the flow of the argument.

The authors could review how definite articles are deployed. They are used in different ways in English than Spanish, presumably the first language of the authors. In line 28, there is one out of place: "the media ecology" should say "media ecology."

Some of the uses of "the" before media are unnecessary, but it is a delicate balance because we can talk about both "the media" and "media." When saying "the media" consider it to be all those instances when you are also including human agency. "The media" is full of editors, producers, pundits, financiers, corporations, and etc. "The media" has an agenda or can be manipulated by those with an agenda. "Media," on the other hand, are the technologies. Media have affordances. Television, newspapers and Internet platforms are media. FOX, the New York Times and Facebook are the media. Most media goes quiet when the power goes off, except newspapers/magazines.... The media keeps going, working on the story of the power failure...

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. This manuscript offers an interesting review of the transformations introduced by digital communication. The authors use the McLuhan’s foundational studies on the relationship of people with media technologies and the concept of media ecology developed by Postman to analyze how the media industry has reinvented itself. A narrative review is carried out, combining scientific and grey documents, which seems useful to illustrate the main changes in the field.

The authors move from the role of the radio to alter consumption patterns since the mid-1950s to the current consolidation of a digital ecosystem ruled by platforms. Besides that, the paper also furthers our understanding on mass television and how they impact on the shaping of practices of media consumption beyond fictional contents.

2. The contribution works as a scientific review. However, I miss one or two paragraphs in which the authors explain the structure of the article. It would be helpful to provide details on the order of the review.

Moreover, there are no formal objectives or research questions. This information is needed for a better structure of the paper, especially regarding the conclusions. On this matter, the final observations may be linked to formal objectives. Limitations, and especially future lines of research, should also be addressed.

3. The list of references is up-to-date and suitable for the present study. For instance, the recent works of Scolari are considered. Nevertheless, as this review deals with the concept of media ecology (developed in the United States by a sociologist to examine the impact of communication technologies on individuals), the authors may appraise this article on how sociology has abandoned the study of mass communication due to an increasing technological complexity:

·       Pooley, J., & Katz, E. (2008). Further Notes on Why American Sociology Abandoned Mass Communication Research. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 767-786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00413.x

4. The review reflects upon how the hybridization of analogue and digital technologies lead the audience to have a more flexible relationship with the media, redefining their consumption patterns and expectations, but the key book of hybridization in the media system is not present:

·       Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system. Politics and power (2.ª ed). New York: Oxford University Press.

5. Finally, a snack culture is identified as the result of an instant paradigm. As the article stated, the last technological developments has significant impacts on both media ecology and individual consumption patterns. The rise of a digital media ecosystem is marked by platforms, which prioritizes virality. In this sense, I think that the authors could go further and explore some additional media and democratic implications of this situation.

6. Regarding the conclusion, this section is quite short. It should be necessary to connect the information provided (radio-TV-digital era) with prior scholarship and the consequences of these changes. Hence, the objective is to build a proper discussion for which limitations and future lines of research are also required.

7. In short, this paper is an interesting approach to know better the transformations of digital communication, but the review would be reinforced with a clear structure, objectives, and a detailed discussion. Some additional references could help to solve these minor changes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors adressed all my concerns in a consistent way. I strongly believe that the manuscript is now ready to be published providing a conrtibution to the field.