Comparative Analysis of the Journalistic Agenda between Corporate and Community Media in Ecuador National Strike 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting article that presents a comparative analysis of the journalistic treatment of the Ecuador social mobilizations in 2022. Overall, I found this work suitable to be published in the journal although several revisions are needed. Below you can find suggestions that can help strengthen the manuscript prior to publication. I hope they are helpful for the authors.

First, the theoretical framework of the study focusses on two main areas, agenda-setting theory and self-representation through the media. However, none of these topics are in-depth analyzed but rather a bit superficially presented. For example, the authors present the notion of agenda-setting in two paragraphs on p.2 (lines 69-92) mixed with social movements representation. My suggestion is to delve a bit deeper and present recent advances in the field. For example, the issue of salience – which is a crucial component in the agenda-setting theory – is totally missing. For recent advances in the field of hybrid/digital salience and agenda setting you can see the following works:

a) Ragas, M.W. and Tran, H. (2013) Beyond cognitions: A longitudinal study of online search salience and media coverage of the president. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 90(3): 478–499.

b) McCombs M.E., Shaw, D.L. and Weaver, D.H. (2014) New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society 17(6): 781–802.

c) Maniou, T.A. and Bantimaroudis, P. (2021). Hybrid salience: Examining the role of traditional and digital media in the rise of the Greek radical left. Journalism 22(4): 1127-1144.

In addition, it is not clear how the agenda-setting theory interrelates with the representation of social movements. This needs to be adequately discussed in relation to issues of salience and the media.

Also, the authors could try to show why this work is important beyond the narrow field of the case study of Ecuador examined here. How does it advance our understanding of agenda-setting and media representation in an international context? For the moment, there is only one sentence in the end (p.13, lines 508-9) about the importance of the study.

Author Response

We thank you for your kind review that will improve the quality of the article. We have considered it pertinent to introduce the following suggested reference bibliography:

McCombs M.E., Shaw, D.L. and Weaver, D.H. (2014) New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society 17(6): 781–802.

In turn, we consider it necessary to deepen in the relationship between setting agendas and the coverage of protests from both mainstream media and alternative community media. This, above all, taking into account that the protests were led by the indigenous movement; and that the general tone of the mainstream media showed signs of racism in their journalistic coverage.

We really appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your study is an interesting one that can make a contribution to our knowledge of the obstacles that social movements of marginalized people face when it comes to coverage of their mobilizations in the main stream media.  In the present form, however, your case study nes a section that clearly describes the the situation in Ecuador in 2022 that lead to the conflict.  An outside reader who is unfamiliar with the case has trouble making sense of the case and in assessing its significance.  We need a section, that descfibes the who, where, when, what, and how of the mobilization and its ultimate resuolution.  You have a potentially interesting case study on framing, without the needed supporting detail.  I had to look up a couple of articles and newsclips to aid my interpretation of the case.

Please also describe how you determined the three phases of the mobilization from initiation to resolution, were there particular events that marked the beginning of each phase.  I also gave the editors some suggestions on how I think the significance of your case findings can be enhanced in the concluding section of the article.

Best wishes as you move forward with your research.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The term "invsibilization" is used repeatedly throughout the document, but it is unclear to me, what is being concealed in the coverage of the  mainline news outlet.  Some clearer descritption or designation is needed.  There is some adjectives such as "hegemonic" that can be dropped because they are buzwords that add little to the description.  The partisan tone of the article should also be reduced.  For instance, several actions by government or business actors are described as "racist".  A brief description of the events with the tag that these acts were widely perceived as racist within the indigenous movement would suffice.

Author Response

 We really appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our article.We have considered it pertinent to introduce the following suggestions.

1. The contextualization of the protest will be improved, in order to allow for a better understanding of the analysis.
2. The facts with which the three phases of the protest were determined will be determined.
3. The term "hegemonic" will be replaced by "mainstream".

In reference to the term "invisibilization" we intend to demonstrate that there were facts of the protest (e.g. the deaths of protesters) that were absent from the coverage of the mainstream media. Additionally, we consider it pertinent to keep the term racist, especially because this research arises at a time of great advance of the racist discourse.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This is a good analysis of media coverage of protests in Ecuador in 2022.  The empirical analysis is extensive, and I like the idea of comparing community media and mainstream media.  It's nice too that it deals with television coverage; too many studies deal only with print media, but television in much more important. 

 

The literature review and conceptual framework could be more extensively developed.  The main theoretical reference is to McCombs agenda setting theory.  But this is not really the most sophisticated perspective to connect with a critical discourse analysis.  Framing is really the post appropriate conceptual framework to use here.  In fact, the concept of frame is invoked a number of times in the analysis, but that concept is never formally introduced.  In the global literature, the key work on media framing of protests is Todd Gitlin's The Wole World is Watching, and there is a lot in his work--particularly the tendency of media to frame protest in terms of disruption of social order and restoration of order by the authorities.  (Where the author speaks, on p. 2, of media "judicializing" protests, that basically refers to the use of the social disorder frame--the term "judicialize" is not clear in English.)  This is often referred to in global literature as "the protest paradigm," and there is a large literature on this. 

 

One other conceptual issue in this manuscript has to do with the use of the term "communicational intention."  I think the truth is that a study of this sort cannot really make claims about "communicational intention."  To do this requires other methods besides discourse analysis of media content; it requires interviews with media personnel, or some other kind of method that provides evidence about the institutional processes behind the content.  It's not unlikely, especially in the Latin American context, that the framing and news agenda the author recognizes really does coincide with the communicative intent of media managers and/or journalists here.  But this isn't always the case--in Gitlin's analysis, for example, there are important elements of the framing of protest that are unintended results of the use of news routines, which do not match the communicative intent of journalists.  Also related to this, the term "media siege" should either be explained or dropped.  It seems to refer to an extensive, highly active campaign by the media to influence public opinion.  This does happen in Latin America, of course.  But in a scholarly article if a term like this is going to be used it needs to be defined, contextualized in literature on media and politics, and the criteria for recognizing that the use of the term is appropriate need to be spelled out; it shouldn't be invoked in a purely casual way. 

 

The methodology should be explained a little more fully.  The references to "thematization, pragmatic functions, and semantic functions . . .  divided into actants, value, anti-value, they, and we," is not really adequate, as these concepts and their operationalization in the research is not fully explained.  Also, many of these concepts are not really used in the analysis that follows, which seems to focus mainly on thematization.  The methodology that produces the results presented in the figures should be explained more fully.    

 

In the conclusion, the author refers to "another important reason to explain Ecuavisa's framing"--but it is not clear what the first reason was.  Here, by the way, is another place where the author doesn't root the analysis very well in existing literatures--here, the literature on sociology and political economy of media in Latin America, analyzing, for example, the ties of media owners to political and economic elites, that one might use to explain why media take the positions they do in politics.  One could refer here for example to recent works by Manuel Alejandro Guerrero or Martín Echeverria. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

This paper is written very clearly in general.  There are places, though where there are problems with the English usage that would be good to clean up.  One thing is that the Spanish term "nota" does not translate as "note" in English, but as "story" or "news item."  Also the term "dispute" is used oddly in many places.  In some cases the closest English equivalent would probably be "debate," perhaps in some places "argument;" on p. 1, where the author writes "the configuration of public opinion was disputed in the media scenario," it should probably read something like "contested in the media field."  Almost every place where the term "dispute" is used--there are many-- should be rewritten in one way or another. 

 

A few other places where there are language usage issues include "journalistic exercise" p. 1 (maybe "journalistic practice"); "aggressions to the public force" (attacks on security forces") ; "Another perspective of self-representation raises Reza" ("Another perspective on self-representation is raised by Reza); "cautious analysis" (p. 4--"careful analysis");   "tear gas bomb that entered through his cavity )p. 7. 

Author Response

We thank you for your kind review that will improve the quality of the article. We have considered it pertinent to introduce the following suggestions.

1. The reference to Todd Gitlin's book will be introduced in the theoretical section.
2. The term "media siege" will be replaced by "media bias", to refer to the bias in the dominant media framing in the coverage of the protest.
3. The media Ecuavisa and TV MICC will be better contextualized to understand the political economy of communication.

In reference to methodological observations, the categories of semantic and pragmatic functions, actants, communicative intention, etc. are derived from critical discourse analysis.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further suggestions, the authors have revised the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam, 

Thank you for your valuable comments, the theoretical framework has been improved and the bibliographic references have been carefully revised. Additionally, we will request the revision and proofreading service to improve the English. 

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The readability of the document is improved.  The added context is helpful as well.  Some good data in the piece.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

My main suggestion is to bring verb tense into consistency.  They are currently rather inconsistent.  Here is a chart from the APA journal which specifies proper form for different parts of the research paper.

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/verb-tense

A second suggestion is to remove the names of the works of the two added references on agenda setting and Gitlin's work on framing.  The author and year are enough. Additional information is in the reference list.

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam, 

Thank you for your valuable comments, the theoretical framework has been improved and the bibliographic references have been carefully revised. Additionally, we will request the revision and proofreading service to improve the English. 

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Once again, I like this article fundamentally, and would like to see it published.  But the revision is not really responsive to the issues I raised in the first round of review, and the current manuscript still suffers from the same weaknesses as before.  I think the authors' don't seem to understand that though this study has excellent potential, it needs real work to realize that potential and to meet the criteria for published scholarship.  Just adding a reference and changing a word here and there is not an adequate response to the review process.    

 

One point in my original review had to do with the literature review.  The author(s) added a reference to Gitlin and also, in response to another reviewer, to another article on agenda-setting.  But these are superficial changes that don't really deepen the engagement of this article with the existing literature on media coverage of protest.  As I noted in my original comments, that literature is quite large; it isn't necessary of course to cite and discuss it all, but the article would be much stronger if the author(s) really engaged with it and positioned their findings in relation to it.  Besides the Gitlin book, as I noted, there is a whole tradition of research that deals with the "protest paradigm," and the social disorder frame that it involves, and it seems to me that an article of this sort needs to position itself in relation to that literature.  Part of that literature, by the way, deals directly with Latin America, and sometimes involves comparisons of mainstream and alternative media.  A couple of examples are

 

Jiménez-Martínez, C. (2021). The Instrumental Mediated Visibility of Violence: The 2013 Protests in Brazil and the Limitations of the Protest Paradigm. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(3), 525–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220923984

 

Summer Harlow and others, Protest Paradigm in Multimedia: Social Media Sharing of Coverage about the Crime of Ayotzinapa, Mexico, Journal of Communication, Volume 67, Issue 3, June 2017, Pages 328–349, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12296

 

A second point I made in my original review had to do with the conceptual framework, which focuses on the concept of agenda-setting, but then shifts in discussing the results to using the concept of framing instead, but without ever introducing that concept, or explaining how it is related to the concept of agenda-setting.  This is one of the reasons I suggested Gitlin's book, because it was one of the first to articulate the concept of framing, as well as to apply it to news coverage of protest.  This is in part what I mean when I say that the author is adding a citation to Gitlin's book, but not really engaging with it--this is an important resource that can allow deepening of the conceptual framework.  There is, by the way, another extensive literature discussing the relation of the concept of framing to agenda setting--if both are going to be used the author show know at least some of this literature.  For example:

 

David H. Weaver, Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming, Journal of Communication, Volume 57, Issue 1, March 2007, Pages 142–147, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00333.x

 

A third point had to do with the use of the term "communicational intention."  This term is still used repeatedly, without any discussion of how the author can draw conclusions about communicative intention; it is not something that an analysis of the agenda and the framing present in media content by itself can show.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were true that Ecuavisa had an actual intention to support the government by delegitimizing the protests.  But to actually demonstrate this would require other kinds of research, interviews, for example--which might be difficult to do, of course.  If the author wants to include speculation about communicative intention in the discussion of the results, this should, it seems to me, be made explicit and rooted in a stronger discussion of the political economy of the media in Ecuador.  There is a brief, undeveloped reference to this at the beginning of the concluding section, but it is not well developed at all.  Here, as other places in the manuscript, as I note in my original review, it would make sense to root this in the literature on political economy of media in Latin America, none of which is cited in this manuscript.  I am thinking of work like that of Guerrero and Marquez-Ramirez on the "captured liberal" model of media, and the kinds of transactional, clientelistic relationships that tie media to political elites.  It is not true, by the way, that agenda setting theory posits that "agenda setting is a process of mass communication in which the media make visible or hide the issues they present to public opinion, according to their interests."  Agenda-setting theory is primarily a theory of media effects, not a theory to explain media content, and it makes no claim about media acting instrumentally in this way. 

 

Another point has to do with the methodology section, the references to "thematization, pragmatic functions, and semantic functions . . .  divided into actants, value, anti-value, they, and we."  The author(s) say in their response that these concepts come from CDA.  That's fine, I'm aware of that, but they still have to explain them and explain how they were  operationalized in this research is not fully explained.  Also, many of these concepts are not really used in the analysis that follows, which seems to focus mainly on thematization--so maybe it is not actually necessary to refer to them.

 

Another point had to do with the reference in the conclusion to "another important reason to explain Ecuavisa's faming"--where it is is not clear to me what the first reason was.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Many of the points I made about English usage still have not been addressed, e.g. the use of the terms "note" and "dispute," or also "Another perspective of self-representation raises Reza" ("Another perspective on self-representation is raised by Reza); ";   "tear gas bomb that entered through his cavity )p. 7.  Or to add another, "generated a coverage of denunciation" doesn't make much sense in English, the term "denuncia" has special meanings in Spanish that don't translate into English.  This should probably say something like TV MICC offered extensive investigative reporting in 25 articles . . . "

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam, 

Thank you for your valuable comments, the theoretical framework was deeply improved and the bibliographical references were thoroughly revised. Your comment regarding "communicative intention" was appreciated and was replaced by the notion of framing associated with critical discourse analysis as a methodology.  In addition, proofreading and editing services will be requested to improve the English language. 

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I'm satisfied with the most important revisions the author has done here.  The literature review could be stronger in some ways but is adequate, and the relation between the agenda-setting and framing perspectives is handled much better in this version.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I do want to signal some places where editing is needed. 

On p. 3, near the bottom, the text refers to "the field of setting-framing"  This doesn't make sense, and should read agenda setting-framing"  This same phrase appears in each of the following two pages. 

 

On p. 6, the phrase "a quantitative and qualitative scope in dialogue" doesn't make sense.  Maybe it should be "quantitative and qualitative approaches"

 

On p. 7, and then many times in the text thereafter, the Spanish term "notas" is translated as "notes."  But "notes" doesn't have the equivalent meaning in English.  The right translation would be "news items" or "news stories"

 

On that page "framing analysis was carried out considering the CDA" doesn't make sense  maybe "framing analysis was carried out according to the approach of CDA"

 

On Figure 2, the label on the first bar reads "Information and reporting of"  but it needs to tell us of what.  In general the labels on the figures are very low resolution and are hard to read; I hope in the published version they will be better. 

 

On p. 9, "In contrast, for TV MICC it legitimized the protests" should be "In contrast TV MICC legitimized the protests," or "In contrast the framing of TV MICC legitimized the protests,"

 

On p. 15, the term "dispute" is still used wrongly in some places.  "TV MICC's dispute focused on" doesn’t make sense.  It should be "TV MICC's argument (or framing, or journalism, or coverage) focused on"

 

similarly "most important disputes to break the media bias" doesn't make sense, maybe should be "most important initiatives to break the media bias" or "most important efforts"

 

on p. "Ecuavisa's journalistic framing of the June protests lies in the right-wing ideological stance" doesn't make sense, and is missing something.  Maybe "Ecuavisa's journalistic framing of the June protests was rooted in the right-wing ideological stance. . . "