Silenced Voices in Portuguese Public TV News: An Intersectional Analysis of the Representation of Women with Disabilities in RTP’s Telejornal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In results, the table 7 shows that all direction and social image are considered as negative by researchers. But the way to arrive to this "negative" evaluation is not clear. Could it be more claerly explained ?

line 533: the interpretation about the stability and positivity (as in the previous commentary, how do you arrive to the result : positive?) of sports section is rather weak,

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I welcome new research in this area but do not believe that this paper contributes data or discussion which further knowledge in this area.

There are a range of interrelated difficulties here. First of all, by choosing terminology in accordance with h the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability and an approach which tends to default to medical categorisations (see POI 2) the authors present data analysis which, engages with, if not follows a social model or Critical/Cultural Disability Studies approach. In doing so it neglects many recent contributions to work on disability, media, and culture, e.g., in going beyond a positive/negative binary. Significantly, the authors identify 'negative' and 'positive' examples of new coverage as though they are factually such; it is likely that these examples would be firmly contested by disabled activists/disabled women, with 'positive' examples of inspiration porn. There is no reflection or critical engagement with such debates, as there should be.

Although I welcome quantitative analysis on this topic, this study's data is very limited and doesn't match the initial remit, especially as the sample gained deals mainly with mothers rather than disabled women. This seems due i the lack of a firm, and focused rationale (the introductory sections are not structured well which exacerbates this).

The methodology needs much more explanation in most sections and, again doesn't follow from the remit, as explained. For example, there is insufficient  explanation as to how things were deemed a 'disability story'; it is more than probable that many non-disability-themed stories had disabled women at their centre.

The discussion and conclusion, like some of the earlier sections, are quite vague in many parts, with references or more explanation/evidence needed for some claims. The data discussed does not yield any new contributions to knowledge.

There are quite a lot of errors in writing which need attention. Also the points of interest are not really such - more about terminology etc.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Mostly satisfactory but quite a lot of errors, which make meaning unclear in a range of places

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a necessary and interesting article. One suggestion would be to introduce and explain what the authors term the "Representation matrix" sooner to allow for the complexity of their intersectional argument to come forward. It is not clear why the term double jeopardy is being used here as in English it evokes a cultural understanding of not being charged twice with a crime - how does this turn of phrase offer more than intersectionality does? I'd love to see the authors engage a little more intersectionality in their results and also allow for space that doesn't rely so heavily on a gender binary. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language There are some sections with errors in English and some sections that maybe should not be there - for example on line 281 - "This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise 281 description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental 282 conclusions that can be drawn. "

Did you mean to include this? 

The discussion of Garland- Thompsons work refers to the "Stereotypes are aggravated in the feminine, " What do you mean by this? Do you mean stereotypes of women? of any gender with feminine characteristics? Some areas would benefit from a bit more clarity. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study to understand how WwD and chronic diseases are deemed newsworthy in the Portuguese public news. The topic of public representations of WwD is of high interest. However, there are some weaknesses that the Author(s) should address: 

1. the study has a national relevance but it is not applicable to international contexts. The literature on critical disability studies and intersectionality should be deepened. 

2. the criteria for secelting the programmes and the TV station are not well justified.

3. The positioning of the researchers is not mentioned in the paper. which is in contrast with what the literature on disability studies suggest about expliciting the perspective of the researchers and the role of participants with disabilities. 

4. The implications of the study can not be generalized or transferred to any other national and/or international context. If this aspect is not addressed by the Author(s), I would recommend publishing the article in a national journal. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The general style of the article is smooth. Nothing to say about the quality of the English. just a few minor language issues to check. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revisions and responding to requests. However the substantive issues with this paper remain; I realise they cannot be changed due to the initial research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor errors remain. This includes new amendments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is much improved but there were two main issues - you say you use standpoint toward the beginning but do not elaborate how - rather it seems you exclusively use feminist disability theory and representation as guiding ideas. Can you clarify how and why standpoint is important here? I also noticed a off handed mention of autism - if you are going to discuss neurodivergence as distinct from other disabilities you need to tease that out. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the comments and weaknesses previously reported. However, I still have some concerns about the statement that the desk research showed that there weren't any similar studies in other countries. My suggestion is to ask the authors to clarify the methodology of the desk research they originally conducted to look for similar cases in other countries. Findings are nor well substantiated and implications for educational research are clarified. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English has been revised. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf