“Are Journalists Traitors of the State, Really?”—Self-Censorship Development during the Russian–Ukrainian War: The Case of Latvian PSM

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the corrections and additions made to the text, I believe the article is ready for publication.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We would like to thank you for your thorough review, which gave us many opportunities to improve our paper. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted using green color in the re-submitted file.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper delves into a pivotal concept, particularly significant during the current turning point of the war in Ukraine.  The paper needs to enhance its theoretical analysis.  Plus, this research must spell out its contribution to media and communication or journalism scholarship. 

 

For a more comprehensive understanding of the pressures on journalists, it is essential to provide additional context about the Russian colonization of Latvia in the introduction of this paper.

 

It would also be helpful to mention where Latvia fits in Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini’s seminal comparative media system typology. 

 

Methodological questions:

 

The data for this paper is derived from expert interviews, a method widely recognized for the valuable insights it provides. According to the methodological literature, it is crucial to highlight the significance of these experts and their contributions.  

 

 

How did you recruit expert sources?  Why 15?  Did you reach saturation?

 

How is your sample of source representative of the media in Latvia?  What’s the breakdown?

 

How was the content analysis data analyzed?  What statistical methods? Was there inter-coder reliability?  

 

This paper employs a thematic analysis.  How did the researchers arrive at these themes?  How did they avoid bias?

 

 

Findings section:

 

The findings section is long. A tight description of each theme's determination and a few key examples would make for an easier-to-read paper.

 

Discussion:

 

The discussion does not engage with theory.  What do your findings tell us about field theory and the so-called Spiral of Silence? How are you pushing theory?  How have you positioned your findings with theory? Also, you don’t return to Shoemaker and Reese’s Hierarchy of Influences model.  

 

How could this study’s findings be applied to other media contexts?  Are these findings applicable to self-censorship in North America?

 

Conclusion

 

Much of the conclusion is a discussion. 

 

What contribution does this research make?

 

The other limitation of this study is that it’s not generalizable because of the qualitative data. Plus, no inferential statistics are reported for the content analysis.

 

What’s next? What is the research trajectory that emerges from this study?  What can researchers do next?

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

many thanks for detailed reviewing!

Please see our responses in attached file!

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The limitation section needs to briefly mention how the findings are not generalizable because of the qualitative nature of the interviews and content analysis. 

Also, it would strengthen the paper to conclude why we should care about this study's findings.  Normatively, why is this research necessary in our current disinformation disorder?  Why must journalists have free speech to report without fear or favour?  

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for additional revision of paper and reasonable comments.

Please see below our responses. All amendments are identify using yellow colour .

Reviewer's comment 1. - The limitation section needs to briefly mention how the findings are not generalizable because of the qualitative nature of the interviews and content analysis. 

Response 1. Thanks for pointing this out. Now this issue is addressed, see lines 860 -861.

Comment 2. Also, it would strengthen the paper to conclude why we should care about this study's findings.  Normatively, why is this research necessary in our current disinformation disorder?  Why must journalists have free speech to report without fear or favour?  

Response 2. Thank you very much for this important suggestion! Please see our corrections on lines 838 - 844.

In. addition we would like to inform that we have reviewed all references and added two new references.

 

Best regards

Authors

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Review

Article for the journal “Social Sciences” titled:

“Are we traitors of the state, really?” Self-censorship development during Russia’s Initiated war in Ukraine: Case of Latvian PSMs

 

1. The topic and the approach

The choice of the research topic is very timely and relevant, as journalistic self-censorship not only appears in non-democratic regimes but can also be detected in the conditions of freedom of expression. The reasons vary from religious, moral, or psychological to economic and political. This makes detecting and defining self-censorship complicated.

The current article tries to prove the development of self-censorship in Latvia’s public broadcasting during the years of the Russian-Ukrainian war since 2022. The empirical material consists of 15 interviews and qualitative content analysis of 78 pieces of Latvia’s TV and Radio news production. The article argues that self-censorship affects the Latvian PSM agenda, source selection and reduces content diversity.

 

2. Conceptual framework

The definition of self-censorship in this paper is derived from Bar-Tal’s (2017) work but leaves aside the possibility that “a deliberate and voluntary suppression of information” without any formal obstacles can also appear in a positive way and sometimes be necessary or even desired. According to Bar-Tal (2017): “It is recognized that in some cases self-censorship is required for maintaining security, preserving the well-being of a society /…/”. The current article focuses exclusively on negative self-censorship.

 

In the Abstract, it is argued that the conceptual framework of the current study is based on Bourdieu’s field theory. However, the explanation of habitus does not even mention Bourdieu or his works but refers to various other authors (lines 126-135: Papanagnou, 2023; Fligstein & McAdam, 2012; Šulmane, 2011; Zeveleva, 2020). The Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence theory is arguably used to see how self-censorship influences journalists’ habitus and the role of the agent (lines 83-84), but it is not clear how the fears of losing habitus and of social isolation are connected in the concept of self-censorship.

There is also certain confusion with using some other notions. There is no definition of ‘self-perceived influences’, but only a reference to Hanitzsch’s work. It is unclear whether the ‘objective’ and ‘external’ influences are used as synonyms and where ‘social environment’ belongs. Later in the Results part, (line 242) “the internal (editorial) and external (audiences, institutions) drivers of self-censorship” come in.

More detailed clarification of the concept is necessary.

 

3. Research questions

The first research problem is not clearly formulated. Instead, a description of the context is presented (lines 69-75). The main research problem is phrased as how self-censorship as a consequence of “personal and public attacks” against journalists impacts the Latvian PSM. The “impact” is supposed to be proved through some aspects in the content of the PSM production. However, the supposed impact can also be a result of something other than self-censorship, for instance editorial stance.

 

The research question (lines 87-88) actually contains two questions: What determined the perception of self-censorship in Latvian PSM? and How is it influencing the representation of war in PSM?

 

4. Methodology

 

The methodology subchapter should explain how to get the answers to the research questions. The 15 semi-structured interviews with the PSM employees are conducted to find out how they perceive self-censorship, its reasons and consequences.

The reason why there are only two male interviewees out of 15 could have been explained. What is the general proportion of male and female employees in Latvian PSM?

While one of the conclusions of the article seems to be that there is less self-censorship in the Russian-language channels, the proportion of these journalists among the interviewees should also be given. Or were there only lsm.lv journalists included (as the table in the Appendix seems to indicate)? A bit more clarity is necessary concerning the selection of interviewees.

Very little is said about interview questions. Not all the readers of the journal have access to the WJS questionnaire. I suggest putting the list of interview questions in the Appendix.

 

It is a bit difficult to understand how exactly the content analysis was done (lines 228-235). First, was the content analysis of LR, LR4, LTV7, Rus.LSM.lv, and FB accounts of PSM done by ‘one of the authors’ of the article as a part of the PEMMC report or independently for the study described in the article? How are the mentioned ’78 content units’ (line 238) related to the PEMMC content analysis of LR, LR4, LTV7, Rus.LSM.lv, and FB accounts of PSM? Rus.LSM.lv appears in both selections.

In the Results, however, the results of the content analysis of lsm.lv are not used, but all examples come from LR4. What data was then actually used in the current article? The document that is referenced only deals with LTV, LTV7 and LSM.lv, and not LR1 and LR4. The correct report of the content analysis of LR1, LR4 and LSM.lv is: Aija Kažoka (2022) Neatkarīga nozares profesionāļa/eksperta recenzija par sabiedriskā pasūtījuma izpildi LR1, LR4 un rus.lsm.lv

Recenzija par sabiedriskā pasūtījuma izpildi LR1, LR4 un rus.lsm.lv

This is not included in the reference list.

 

Second, the coding table used should be described or added, as it cannot be expected that the readers will search for the source by themselves. 

Third, the coding table was not made for researching self-censorship. However, there were some questions about diversity of the content, sources and ethical issues. The conclusions about self-censorship are based on the “data implicitly pointing to the presence of self-censorship”. The methodological subchapter, however, does not explain, what indicators make self-censorship identifiable - implicitly or explicitly.

 

5. Results and conclusions

 

A certain bias can be detected in the presentation of the results, as well as in the Discussion and Conclusions. The Results part only compares the results of the content analysis of LR1 and LR4, but the Discussion and Conclusions make generalisations to all Latvian PSM channels. The PEMMC report on LR1 and LR4 points out both positive and negative aspects of the news coverage of both radio channels. The manuscript puts more emphasis on the achievements of the Russian-language radio and the failures of the Latvian one, ignoring the achievements of the latter. For example, (lines 497-500): “Content targeted for Latvian audience does not include sources concerned about the splitting of society and talking about how tough and scary it is to be Russian at a time when the word “Russia” has become toxic.”  However, the report on LR1 points out: “…an impressive spectrum of opinions is covered, for example, on 1 March D. Kuzmin expresses his concern that what has happened will divide society, how difficult and frightening it is to be Russian at a time when the very word "Russia" has become toxic. A Russian citizen [Moscow] tells of protests that are taking place and, in her opinion, will continue to take place. Ms Gubenko stresses the responsibility of politicians to consolidate society. Mr Hanov explains why some Latvian Russians look towards Russia and describes the political and propaganda discourse

Particularly valuable are G. Amolins' reports from the scene (15.03.) - an eyewitness view that outlines both the extent of the damage and the situation on the Ukrainian border.

--- the news programme-makers do a tremendous job in presenting a range of new problems and phenomena that have arisen as a result of the war.”

Nothing critical is said about the Russian-language media/LR4, although the PEMMC report contains such examples. For example: Report on LR4, p.13: “There is a lack of balance in the choice of events in the 15 March news block, as it is mostly about Russia.”

A question arises also concerning the interpretation of the examples of the content analysis. For example, (lines 514-517): “The war-related content created by Latvian editorials shows an avoidance of issues which could provoke outrage in the audience; therefore, journalists rely on the expertise  and responsibility of authorised sources.” This is not necessarily a result of self-censorship but can well be the adherence to the editorial war-time line. Also the PEMMC report concludes: “journalists and producers in the units have not encountered any difficulties in quickly learning the specifics of crisis/war reporting and interviewing. This is most likely because these media outlets are based on a Code of Conduct and Ethics, and these boundaries are also binding in the guidelines for reporting on war-related crises.”

Consequently, the concept of self-censorship is more sophisticated than the theoretical framework offers. 

 

6. Accuracy of the information and source presentation

 

- Rožukalne, A. & Ozoliņa, L. (2022, May 27). Complicated shades of contemporary journalism: perception of professional roles of Latvian’s journalists. The 28th Biennial AABS Conference: Baltic Studies at a Crossroads. https://aabs-balticstudies.org/aabs-2022-in-seattle/

The link provided does not open the conference paper. Correct link: https://science.rsu.lv/en/activities/complicated-shades-of-contemporary-journalism-perception-of-profe

 

- Reference to Kruks & Skulte, 2023 (lines 532, 640) is missing.

- There is Kruk, S. & Skulte, I. 2022 in the references that does not appear in the text.

- Reference to (line 510) Sprudzāne, 2023 is missing 

 

- In the text (lines 543-546) the following statement: “both politicians and online commenters follow a populistic slogan, finding a culprit for societal problems in the media, as well as an “enemy of nation” in the context of the war in Ukraine” is incorrectly quoted, as the indicated sources (Alvares, & Dahlgren, 2016; Rozukalne, 2020) do not deal with “an enemy of nation in the context of the war in Ukraine”. In addition, both sources are published before the full scale war in Ukraine started.

- Lines 50-51: “Latvian PSMs are insufficiently funded, but the audience’s trust in them is slightly higher than the EU average (Eurobarometer, 2022).”

 How high is ‘slightly higher’? 

 

7. Clarity of presentation, language

 

The English language needs proper editing.

 

- Throughout the text: ‘editorial’ is used in the meaning of ‘editorial staff’ or ‘editorial office’

- Some sentences are too long to properly read and understand. For example, the sentence (lines 228-233): “To assess the quality of content dedicated to the war in Ukraine, /---/, and content with core professional principles and ethical norms of professional journalism” consists of  66 words.

- “Russia’s initiated war “ should be ‘the Russian – Ukrainian war’

- PSM is already in plural, so PSMs is not correct

- Lines 33-34: “… and analyzes content related PSM content”

- Line 16: Boudreau’s Field Theory -> Bourdieu’s

- Line 88: refresentation -> representation

- Line 167: title 2.2. Attacks on journalists and self-censorship

- Ambiguous title: ‘Attacks on --- self-censorship’

 

For clarity, I suggest a more neutral title. “Are we traitors of the state, really?” is ambiguous because ‘we’ is not explained.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the review, p.7

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised article deals with an issue, that of self-censorship in times of war, of enormous social relevance and academic interest for numerous disciplines. To this must be added the timeliness of the issue it addresses: the Russo-Ukrainian war and its repercussions on the journalistic profession in Latvia.

In fact, it is evident that the geographical situation, history, and the contentious relationship between Riga and Moscow, not to mention the relationships between the various linguistic communities within Latvia, make the example of public media in Latvia a case study of the highest interest. However, I believe that the choice of topic is both the main virtue and the main problem of the text presented.

1.       On the one hand, I find the methodological choice of semi-structured interviews to be a success, as well as the choice of interviewees. However, and I believe this is important, the media context of Latvia, including its linguistic diversity, as well as the exposure (even if briefly) of the coexistence difficulties between communities prior to the conflict, is conspicuously absent in the article. And without this, it is impossible for any non-specialist reader in the political-media context of Latvia to understand the fundamental thesis of the research. An inexperienced reader might think that, before the war, there were no problems of self-censorship in Latvia, or of freedom of expression, or serious controversies with the Russian-speaking community, for example regarding the interpretation of the Soviet past. The same can be said about the case of the studied medium: public TV and radio. Little information is provided about their characteristics, problems, and virtues before the war, their broadcasts in Latvian and Russian, etc. Knowing this context minimally would greatly help in understanding the current problems that emerge from the interviews.

2.       On the other hand, a deeper discussion about the concept of self-censorship itself, which is central to the article, is missing.

3.       As a recommendation, in case the author has not already considered it, it would be interesting for the full text of the interviews to be accessible in an open-access repository, which would allow for a deeper consultation of them.

4.       I think it is very good to work with Bourdieu's concepts. However, I believe it is necessary to clarify the connection between the concepts of "habitus" and "field" and the object of study. Sometimes it gives the impression that Bourdieu's habitus is being interpreted in an overly simplified way, almost synonymous with "work routines".

5.       The article, due to its writing, is difficult to follow. It has somewhat disorganized writing and numerous abrupt topic jumps, as well as frequent repetitions of the same ideas in different parts of the text. I believe the content should be better organized. The study's objectives are also scattered throughout the article, which can confuse the reader.