The Hybrid Journalism That We Do Not Recognize (Anymore)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting topic, and very relevant , but your piece would benefit from more rigorous editing, and improved structure, as well as from some more obvious primary research. It reads like an elongated literature review, and is repetitive and rambling in parts. 

The use of English is strange in parts, so very careful proof reading will be needed. There is confusion of singular and plural in nouns and verbs, mistakes in word order, words missing, inappropriate choice of words (e.g. 'malty'? - isn't that for chocolate bars and hot drinks ? ). 

Overall, more primary research would give more authority to this piece. The constant use of 'we (think this or that) , 'we' , 'we' , 'we' appears to be a presentational cover for lack of rigorous empirical method. 

Author Response

 

We would like to thank for the precious comments received. We apologize for the delay with which this revision arrives, but it has been a busy time where it has been hard to find the time for this job. We revised the paper in line with what the referees requested, but we were unable to have the language revised. We are working to get it done as quickly as possible as soon as the final evaluation is obtained. We have restructured the paper and tried to make it more consequential, as the referees asked us. Changes (both new text and some rearrangement of the paragraphs) are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. The main adjustments will be discussed below.

 

Reply to Reviewer 1

 

your piece would benefit from more rigorous editing, and improved structure

In rereading, we realized the fragility of the paper's structure. We rearranged it like this:

 

• first paragraph introduces the topic and explains why we use the "communicative ecology" approach. It introduces its different elements. Then, it reaffirms a theoretical perspective that was not adequately exploited in the previous version: that of journalism as a discursive institution. He therefore connects the third "layer" of media ecology to this theoretical approach, explaining that it is precisely the discursive level that recomposes those changes and fractures in a general discourse with respect to what journalism is and what its place is in society. Also emphasizing the fact that it is precisely that discourse that highlights the "hybrid" sides of journalism
• The second paragraph reviews the three "layers" providing examples and highlighting interconnections
• the third explains the difference between the concept of "hybrid journalism" we use here, versus that of Chadwick. Furthermore, we have moved here the three corollaries of our reasoning and that 1) "hybrid journalism is now the center of the field"; 2) "The most established forms of hybrid journalism represent continuity rather than change"; 3) "The forms we indicate as hybrid journalism bring homogeneity rather than dissimilarly". In our opinion, placing the three corollaries here makes the article more fluid and consequential
• We have made the necessary changes to the conclusions to reinforce the coherence of the article. We have also tried to answer the legitimate question: "So what?".

 

as well as from some more obvious primary research. It reads like an elongated literature review, and is repetitive and rambling in parts. / Overall, more primary research would give more authority to this piece. The constant use of 'we (think this or that) , 'we' , 'we' , 'we' appears to be a presentational cover for lack of rigorous empirical method.

 

We have identified and eliminated the repetitive parts. However, this is intended to be a theoretical article, this is the reason why we do not present parts of the research. I had thought about including possible lines of research based on this, but everything we tried to write seemed obvious and misleading.

 

The use of English is strange in parts, so very careful proof reading will be needed. There is confusion of singular and plural in nouns and verbs, mistakes in word order, words missing, inappropriate choice of words (e.g. 'malty'? - isn't that for chocolate bars and hot drinks ? ).

 

As already mentioned, we have not been able to have an English revision done which will be carried out as soon as possible. We apologize again. As mentioned, we have not yet managed to get professional help with the use of the language. We tried to improve it, but with the limitations of not being a native speaker. We have limited redundancy in the use of "we". Nevertheless, the style adopted appears to us similar to articles of this type in which a theoretical perspective is offered. Here we tried to defend our point of view; the use of "we" implies both the fact that it is our proposal and that this proposal may be fragile!

Reviewer 2 Report

While I was in some respects inclined to be sympathetic to this article, as it does contain some reasonable insights - namely, that the environment today is not the one of a decade or so ago, and we have witnessed some level of stabilisation after a period of intense disruption.  This point has been well argued by David Karpf's 2019 article ‘Something I No Longer Believe: Is Internet Time Slowing Down?’, Social Media + Society.  However, the authors' stronger claim that the field has 'settled' is harder to lend credence to.  The suggestion appear to be that boundary work is no longer taking place in a settled field, but in doing so misunderstands how boundary work is itself a fairly permenant feature of journalism, as the field and its practitioners seek to maintain and/or transform boundaries through which journalistic authority is constructed.  Indeed, its claim of settlement misreads their major source, Witschge et al, who present a critique of hybridity but are not arguing in favour of a claim the field is - albeit 'a 'flexible, melted network (p.5) now settled - as they argue,  'If we are to understand the continued existence of structures and institutions in a field in flux we need to focus on how socio-technical arrangements depend on the ability of actors to align others to their interests, in networks of relationships that are necessarily contingent because they are recreated in every interaction'.

Thus, to the extent one could discern a clear claim, it felt like this was asserted and rested on problematic premises.  More basically, however, this article rested too much on lofty assertions and simply did not mount a clear enough argument.  It is presented as departing from Chadwick's concept of hybridity, but there is simply not enough detailed engagement with Chadwick for it to work as a critique and departure (indeed, the claim in the conclusion that 'hybrid practices have settled inside norms and institutions, becoming implicit' (p.8) might be read as Chadwick's own claim in a nutshell, albeit one that is less static than the authors' representation).  Chadwick's claim that older and newer media systems coexist and interact in dynamic ways, as older institutions and practices persist but are reconstituted through their interaction with and adoption of newer ones, is simply not engaged with and is represented as maintaining static binaries, which appears an implicit misrepresentation of Chadwick's argument, in the absence of an explicit engagement with it.

Had that been provided, I would have been interested in hearing more about the authors' proposed media ecology approach 'that considers the interactions and the mutual influence among three layers: technological innovation, social-professional aspect and discursive content. Those three layers cooperate, usually without any intentional coordination, to limit and define both what journalism is today, and how it will change' (p.2, lines 92-95).  But the sort of explanation and elaboration of this framework that might have been anticipated was not produced, and this article proceeded to jump around and did not deliver a clear and coherent argument.  This became ultimately frustrating - too many assertions were made without evidence or adequate supporting argument, and in the absence of a proper engagement with hybridity, how the proposed approach departed from Chadwick wasn't clear.  Nor is it ultimately clear what the authors' point is - by the end of the conclusion, I was left with the sense that the authors were arguing that we should and shouldn't 'stay with the mess', acknowledging its messiness while laying claim to a settled, 'beyond' stage.  But I wasn't entirely sure, because the argument wasn't really clear.

I know this review reads like a critique, but this is in part because I feel like the authors have an argument that merits making in here, and do have some good insights, but in its current form this article is not delivering on these.  My advice would be to go back and restructure the article, making the argument and structure clearer, provide a more detailed engagement with Chadwick, and more clearly and carefully elaborating your own framework rather than seeking to draw on other sources as authorities upon which to make grand claims.  Unfortunately, however, such work goes beyond a 'revise and resubmit'.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank for the precious comments received. We apologize for the delay with which this revision arrives, but it has been a busy time where it has been hard to find the time for this job. We revised the paper in line with what the referees requested, but we were unable to have the language revised. We are working to get it done as quickly as possible as soon as the final evaluation is obtained. We have restructured the paper and tried to make it more consequential, as the referees asked us. Changes (both new text and some rearrangement of the paragraphs) are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. The main adjustments will be discussed below.

 

We apologize for the delay with which this revision arrives, but it has been a busy time where it has been hard to find the time for this job. We revised the paper in line with what the referees requested, but we were unable to have the language revised. We are working to get it done as quickly as possible as soon as the final evaluation is obtained. We have restructured the paper and tried to make it more consequential, as the referees asked us. Changes (both new text and some rearrangement of the paragraphs) are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. The main adjustments will be discussed below.

Reply to Reviewer

 

While I was in some respects inclined to be sympathetic to this article, as it does contain some reasonable insights - namely, that the environment today is not the one of a decade or so ago, and we have witnessed some level of stabilisation after a period of intense disruption.  This point has been well argued by David Karpf's 2019

 

Thanks for the suggestion, which actually represents a precious support to our system. We have included it in our article

 

However, the authors' stronger claim that the field has 'settled' is harder to lend credence to. The suggestion appear to be that boundary work is no longer taking place in a settled field, but in doing so misunderstands how boundary work is itself a fairly permanent feature of journalism, as the field and its practitioners seek to maintain and/or transform boundaries through which journalistic authority is constructed.

 

We agree that the article was misleading about this point! We have tried to clarify this aspect (both within the first corollary and in conclusion). We do not believe that the boundary work has ended, but that for now it excludes "hybrid journalism". It continues, undoubtedly, and it is also possible that in future the core of the field will not be anymore hybrid journalism as we suggest. We have added some sentences to explain it. Additionally, we have better explained the use of the perspective linked to "media ecology" and we have better emphasized the theoretical approach linked to journalism as a discursive institution, This helped us to explain how changes (and fractures) find a reconstruction in the idea of journalism as a discursive institution. It helps us to explain in which sense hybrid journalism is settled, it is the predominant discourse, the one able to gain the authority, to explain what is the role of journalism in society

 

Indeed, its claim of settlement misreads their major source, Witschge et al, who present a critique of hybridity but are not arguing in favour of a claim the field is - albeit 'a 'flexible, melted network (p.5) now settled - as they argue

 

We have tried to clarify this point. As we say in the first paragraphs, we appreciate what Witschge et al,  write but in fact we have a different position

 

'If we are to understand the continued existence of structures and institutions in a field in flux we need to focus on how socio-technical arrangements depend on the ability of actors to align others to their interests, in networks of relationships that are necessarily contingent because they are recreated in every interaction'.

 

We have tried to answer this more than legitimate doubt through several steps. 1) Deepening the approach linked to media ecology, in which we emphasized the importance of interaction. 2) The framwork insertion of journalism as a discursive institution. As a whole, the article now appears equipped to go beyond these criticisms.

 

Thus, to the extent one could discern a clear claim, it felt like this was asserted and rested on problematic premises.  More basically, however, this article rested too much on lofty assertions and simply did not mount a clear enough argument.  It is presented as departing from Chadwick's concept of hybridity, but there is simply not enough detailed engagement with Chadwick for it to work as a critique and departure (indeed, the claim in the conclusion that 'hybrid practices have settled inside norms and institutions, becoming implicit' (p.8) might be read as Chadwick's own claim in a nutshell, albeit one that is less static than the authors' representation).  Chadwick's claim that older and newer media systems coexist and interact in dynamic ways, as older institutions and practices persist but are reconstituted through their interaction with and adoption of newer ones, is simply not engaged with and is represented as maintaining static binaries, which appears an implicit misrepresentation of Chadwick's argument, in the absence of an explicit engagement with it.

 

We understand this critique, but we humbly do not agree completely on the necessity to go further on Chadwick since the concept of hybridity in journalism went beyond Chadwick (the third paragraph now tries to face those problems). Nevertheless, we agree that the former version of the paper was kind of sloppy. We engaged further with the hybridity concept rearranging the literature review. Then we have also restructured our paper to overcome those criticisms. We rearranged it like this:

 

Had that been provided, I would have been interested in hearing more about the authors' proposed media ecology approach 'that considers the interactions and the mutual influence among three layers: technological innovation, social-professional aspect and discursive content. Those three layers cooperate, usually without any intentional coordination, to limit and define both what journalism is today, and how it will change' (p.2, lines 92-95).  But the sort of explanation and elaboration of this framework that might have been anticipated was not produced, and this article proceeded to jump around and did not deliver a clear and coherent argument.  This became ultimately frustrating - too many assertions were made without evidence or adequate supporting argument […]

 

Rereading the article, we had the same feeling of frustration! The entire introductory paragraph is now revised to detail this approach- The first paragraph introduces the topic and explains why we use the "communicative ecology" approach. It introduces its different elements. Then, it reaffirms a theoretical perspective that was not adequately exploited in the previous version: that of journalism as a discursive institution. He therefore connects the third "layer" of media ecology to this theoretical approach, explaining that it is precisely the discursive level that recomposes those changes and fractures in a general discourse with respect to what journalism is and what its place is in society. Also emphasizing the fact that it is precisely that discourse that highlights the "hybrid" sides of journalism. We regard this revision as able to meet the critics here raised.

 

Nor is it ultimately clear what the authors' point is - by the end of the conclusion, I was left with the sense that the authors were arguing that we should and shouldn't 'stay with the mess', acknowledging its messiness while laying claim to a settled, 'beyond' stage.  But I wasn't entirely sure, because the argument wasn't really clear.

 

From the moment we sent the article we said we haven't answered the most important question which is "so what"? We asked ourselves this throughout the course of the review, at the end we propose an answer as to why it makes sense to talk about "hybrid journalism" as a central part of the journalistic field.

 

I know this review reads like a critique, but this is in part because I feel like the authors have an argument that merits making in here, and do have some good insights, but in its current form this article is not delivering on these

 

Your review was more than fair. Many thanks for your help and your suggestions. We have done oure best to improve the paper

Reviewer 3 Report

This article builds on research examining media ecosystems and the emergence of “hybrid media” through a specific focus on “hybrid journalism.” Although the concept of hybrid journalism has been situated as on the peripheries of the journalistic field, the authors aim to center it and suggest that it has become a common and taken-for-granted aspect of journalistic practice. The authors also suggest a three-tiered understanding of media ecologies as a lens through which to examine the emergence and reinforcement of hybrid  journalism: technological devices, social models of organization, and discursive content.

In revisiting “hybrid media” and particularly “hybrid journalism” within a contemporary context, the authors offer a useful framework for considering the new forms of journalism that are now commonplace – citizen journalism, data journalism, entrepreneurial journalism, etc. – and the influences that have shaped their emergence. The three-pronged conceptualization of hybrid journalism also builds upon existing scholarship to address the intersections of the rise of technological tools, networked approaches to newswork, and changes to journalistic content and distribution, is also vital for considering the current state of the field.

At present, however, the article needs additional development and clarity to present a fully convincing case as to why this conceptualization of “hybrid journalism” is truly distinctive and reflect contemporary journalistic practice. First, although the authors note that the article focuses specifically on the last 20 years, the examples from which they draw represent shifts in journalism that have emerged over many decades, even before the rise of online media, necessitating some historical context. Second, the authors should more fully consider the role of the audience in hybrid journalism, particularly as the conceptualization they present emphasizes the role of analytics, algorithms, citizen-generated content, and other shifts influenced by changing trends in audience consumption. Finally, the authors do not fully reconcile their definition of hybrid journalism within the media-ecology framework presented at the outset of the article. The conclusion should  offer a stronger argument for how these concepts are intertwined by why understanding hybrid media within the context of media ecology helps to explain the ways journalism is produced and consumed.

More specific suggestions are offered below:

Page 1: In the authors’ introduction to media ecology as a framework, it would be helpful to provide a working definition/conceptualization that will be used for the essay. Also, the authors should elaborate on why this concept is particularly useful for examining hybrid journalism.

Page 1: The description of technology focuses specifically on the most recent developments, particularly social media platforms. Although the study focuses on advancements in the last 20 years, earlier technological shifts — the rise of radio, TV, corporate ownership, newsroom cooperatives, public journalism, participatory media, initial moves to online-focused newsrooms, etc. — and how they led to current ideologies, practices, and routines for journalists and their audiences are important to reference, if briefly.

Page 1: The authors present a list of questions through which to consider the effects of technological change. Some of these questions are somewhat vague: How did journalists change what they take for granted? [Change in terms of what?] What is implicit in their work life? [What does “What” modify here?] Which are the logics they go through in their daily work? [What types of logics? Perhaps provide an example or two.]

Page 2: It is not completely clear what authors mean by “discursive content.” Does this refer only to the content, in various formats, that journalists create? Is discursive content also evident in the ways journalists discuss their work (i.e., “metajournalistic discourse”)? The authors note that this layer is often neglected, although many studies have focused on analyzing journalistic output, even in a media-ecology framework (for example, Anderson, 2013; Nygren, 2019; Robinson & Anderson, 2020; ). What makes this concept distinctive, in the context of this essay?

Page 3: The authors note that “‘Hybridity of media logics’ means the hybridity of the process by which media organizations and practitioners determine how material is categorized, and how the selection of social experience is performed in the media, including styles of communication formats.” What does “material” mean in this description? Also, the authors should elaborate on what they mean by “selection of social experience.” Does this refer to processes and routines in the newsroom?

Page 4: The authors list multiple forms of hybrid journalism: “data driven journalism, programmer journalism, open journalism, journalism that is produced within social media platforms, entrepreneurial journalism, WikiLeaks.” The authors also note that these forms emphasize continuity and homogeneity, rather than change and dissimilarly. Why, then, should these forms be defined differently? What, in particular, distinguishes these forms of journalism from traditional journalism? It would be helpful to identify what makes these forms distinctive – who produces them, in what formats, to what end? Why do they merit a completely new definition in contrast to the shift from print to audio and TV or from print to online, for example?

Page 5: The authors describe hybrid journalism as “flexible, melted, networked.” They could unpack this further. For example, the authors address how networking has been evident in newsrooms, but what makes hybrid journalism “flexible” and “melted”? Do these terms encompass newsroom practices and content?

Page 5: The authors note that in terms of innovations that have become taken-for-granted, “We argue this has happened because the change, though dynamic and flexible, has established itself as the core reality.” However, many examples – disruption of economic models, data journalism, gatekeeping, boundary work – have been present for decades even if they have only recently been named/conceptualized. Do these phenomena represent changes or just new ways of creating existing forms of journalism with new tools and platforms?

Page 6: The authors shift to a discussion of journalistic labor and the ways newsroom roles and those who fulfill them are changing. The authors should present a clearer argument as to where these changes fall within the conceptualization of media ecology presented earlier in the study.

Page 6: In terms of defining today’s journalism, the authors note that “when we ask individual actors, we do not find cohesion or coherence at al.” They then note that these actors have “settled into something that we, alongside professionals and readers, have come to call journalism.” How can they be producing a single conceptualization of journalism when they can’t come to consistent definition? Is “hybrid journalism” defined by a lack of definition and consensus? This also seems to contradict the discussion of predictions in changes in journalism and the repetition of similar themes and approaches. What accounts for the diverse understandings among producers, and does this suggest “hybrid journalism” is not a unified concept?

Page 6: The authors mention forms of hybrid journalism such as “citizen journalism, or freelance/star journalism, or data journalism.” These forms of journalism have existed for decades. What makes them different now?

Page 7: The study references the role of the audience in terms of the rise of analytics and citizen journalism. The authors should more fully integrate the influence of the audience into their discussion of media ecology. Many changes in journalism have been predicated by changes in how audiences consume news (see, for example, trends in the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report as well as Belair-Gagnon et al., 2020; Ferrer-Conill & Tandoc, 2018; Hanusch & Tandoc, 2019; Zamith, 2018).

Page 8: To build on the discussion of the Nieman Lab predictions, how can producers and others discussing journalism take for granted emerging aspects of journalism while also recognizing change in the form of Nieman Lab predictions, for example? What are they actually commenting upon, according to authors’ conceptualizations?

Page 9: The conclusion to the study focuses more on existing definitions of “hybrid” by Witschge and Deuze and others than on the authors’ definition. How do the authors define “hybrid journalism” based on the three-part understanding they introduced? The authors could also take an example – such as data journalism – and discuss it in terms of these three facets and define how “hybrid journalism” represents a new understanding of what journalism has become. The authors should also address how their definition relates and builds upon existing theories/concepts: media ecology and media logics, in particular.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank for the precious comments received. We apologize for the delay with which this revision arrives, but it has been a busy time where it has been hard to find the time for this job. We revised the paper in line with what the referees requested, but we were unable to have the language revised. We are working to get it done as quickly as possible as soon as the final evaluation is obtained. We have restructured the paper and tried to make it more consequential, as the referees asked us. Changes (both new text and some rearrangement of the paragraphs) are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. The main adjustments will be discussed below.

 

We apologize for the delay with which this revision arrives, but it has been a busy time where it has been hard to find the time for this job. We revised the paper in line with what the referees requested, but we were unable to have the language revised. We are working to get it done as quickly as possible as soon as the final evaluation is obtained. We have restructured the paper and tried to make it more consequential, as the referees asked us. Changes (both new text and some rearrangement of the paragraphs) are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. The main adjustments will be discussed below.

 

Reply to Reviewer 3

 

First, although the authors note that the article focuses specifically on the last 20 years, the examples from which they draw represent shifts in journalism that have emerged over many decades, even before the rise of online media, necessitating some historical context.

 

Regarding this critique, our intent was to focus on those changes - be they technological, or related to the discursive content around journalism - that in the past 20 years have prompted the academic world to coin the ‘hybryd journalism’ label; we therefore added a paragraph to clarify our decision to focus on the last 20 years and provide a historical and literature context for our position.

 

Second, the authors should more fully consider the role of the audience in hybrid journalism, particularly as the conceptualization they present emphasizes the role of analytics, algorithms, citizen-generated content, and other shifts influenced by changing trends in audience consumption.

 

As rightly suggested by the referee, we clarified some of the audience-related implications of writing about analytics, algorithms and citizen journalism when mentioned in the text, giving more space to the role of the audience. As the article went under an overall restructuring, this type of redaction has been implemented when we mentioned the technological changes here addressed, for example citing Gillespie, Boczkowski and Foot (2014) when explaining our take on Google and Facebook algorithms, but also Le Masurier (2017) or Hiippala (2016) when explaining how readers online preferences influence journalists’ editorial decisions.

 

Page 1: In the authors’ introduction to media ecology as a framework, it would be helpful to provide a working definition/conceptualization that will be used for the essay. Also, the authors should elaborate on why this concept is particularly useful for examining hybrid journalism.

 

We have further expanded our introductory paragraph to give more structure to the theoretical framework of media ecology and provide more insight on why we believe it applies to the examination of hybrid journalism by providing a restructuring of the introduction and, overall, more working examples of how this framework has been applied and could be further applied when studying hybrid journalism, also addressing media ecology in the conclusion.

 

Page 1: The description of technology focuses specifically on the most recent developments, particularly social media platforms. Although the study focuses on advancements in the last 20 years, earlier technological shifts — the rise of radio, TV, corporate ownership, newsroom cooperatives, public journalism, participatory media, initial moves to online-focused newsrooms, etc. — and how they led to current ideologies, practices, and routines for journalists and their audiences are important to reference, if briefly.

 

As our article wanted to focus specifically on the history of the definition of hybrid journalism by scholars in the field and not on the actual, practical changes - which we agree, have a much older history - we felt that this precious input by the reviewer could be implemented by providing a paragraph explaining the history and background of the definition of hybrid journalism in the introduction.

 

Page 1: The authors present a list of questions through which to consider the effects of technological change. Some of these questions are somewhat vague: How did journalists change what they take for granted? [Change in terms of what?] What is implicit in their work life? [What does “What” modify here?] Which are the logics they go through in their daily work? [What types of logics? Perhaps provide an example or two.]

 

We have reorganized and redacted some of those questions but also provided some working examples (Sehl et al. 2019; Usher 2014) in order to better get our point across.

 

Page 2: It is not completely clear what authors mean by “discursive content.” Does this refer only to the content, in various formats, that journalists create? Is discursive content also evident in the ways journalists discuss their work (i.e., “metajournalistic discourse”)? The authors note that this layer is often neglected, although many studies have focused on analyzing journalistic output, even in a media-ecology framework (for example, Anderson, 2013; Nygren, 2019; Robinson & Anderson, 2020; ). What makes this concept distinctive, in the context of this essay?

 

We addressed this issue by restructuring our explanation of “discursive content” both in the introduction and in the body of the article; we mentioned some notable examples of the increasing importance of this layer in the field (Koliska 2020; Carlson 2017; Robinson & Anderson, 2020), maintaining our initial input that this layer, albeit not completely neglected, is the one that needs more and more attention and that, in our opinion, makes the difference when scholars explore a definition of hybrid journalism, because it is through discursive content that practitioners in the field explore that definition themselves.

 

Page 3: The authors note that “‘Hybridity of media logics’ means the hybridity of the process by which media organizations and practitioners determine how material is categorized, and how the selection of social experience is performed in the media, including styles of communication formats.” What does “material” mean in this description? Also, the authors should elaborate on what they mean by “selection of social experience.” Does this refer to processes and routines in the newsroom?

 

We added a more lengthy and detailed explanation on this issue and what we mean with “hybridity of media logic”, as well as an explanation on what we mean with material - namely, pieces of news during their lifespan (happening, source, article…) - and an explanation on “selection of social experience” based on Chadwick’s conceptualization.

 

Page 4: The authors list multiple forms of hybrid journalism: “data driven journalism, programmer journalism, open journalism, journalism that is produced within social media platforms, entrepreneurial journalism, WikiLeaks.” The authors also note that these forms emphasize continuity and homogeneity, rather than change and dissimilarly. Why, then, should these forms be defined differently? What, in particular, distinguishes these forms of journalism from traditional journalism? It would be helpful to identify what makes these forms distinctive – who produces them, in what formats, to what end? Why do they merit a completely new definition in contrast to the shift from print to audio and TV or from print to online, for example?

 

We agree that this point needed to be further unpacked, but, since our concern isn’t to trace a history of journalistic changes but to analyse how those changes have been defined by journalistic studies as “hybrid” - that is, a history of the definition - we added a clarification on why these forms of journalism have been regarded as different.

 

Page 5: The authors describe hybrid journalism as “flexible, melted, networked.” They could unpack this further. For example, the authors address how networking has been evident in newsrooms, but what makes hybrid journalism “flexible” and “melted”? Do these terms encompass newsroom practices and content?

 

After restructuring the paper completely, we agreed that this sentence in particular was causing more confusion than clarification, and we redacted it.

 

Page 5: The authors note that in terms of innovations that have become taken-for-granted, “We argue this has happened because the change, though dynamic and flexible, has established itself as the core reality.” However, many examples – disruption of economic models, data journalism, gatekeeping, boundary work – have been present for decades even if they have only recently been named/conceptualized. Do these phenomena represent changes or just new ways of creating existing forms of journalism with new tools and platforms?

 

We do not argue that these phenomena have not been present for decades; they however have risen from a more peripheral place in the journalistic field to the core of journalistic work practices in more recent years and have been denominated “hybrid journalism”; as we argue in the defense of the hybrid label we take into account how innovations have recently established themselves as the core.

 

Page 6: The authors shift to a discussion of journalistic labor and the ways newsroom roles and those who fulfill them are changing. The authors should present a clearer argument as to where these changes fall within the conceptualization of media ecology presented earlier in the study.

 

We reorganized the consequentiality of the paper and restructured our shift to journalistic labour providing an explanation of our examples through Deuze (2019) and Compton and Benedetti (2010).

 

Page 6: In terms of defining today’s journalism, the authors note that “when we ask individual actors, we do not find cohesion or coherence at al.” They then note that these actors have “settled into something that we, alongside professionals and readers, have come to call journalism.” How can they be producing a single conceptualization of journalism when they can’t come to consistent definition? Is “hybrid journalism” defined by a lack of definition and consensus? This also seems to contradict the discussion of predictions in changes in journalism and the repetition of similar themes and approaches. What accounts for the diverse understandings among producers, and does this suggest “hybrid journalism” is not a unified concept?

 

Reading our paper again, we agreed with the referee, as our point here did not come across in a clear way. We argue that the settlement (and “taken-for-grantedness”) of certain practices of hybrid journalism is happening in the day-to-day work of all the actors involved - i.e. that journalists are doing, creating hybrid journalism - but that among them there isn’t a clear cut definition of what they are doing. That is, hybrid journalism exists because journalists are creating it, but, as peripheral versions of journalism become more and more the core of journalistic practice today, there is not a general consensus over what constitutes “peripheral” and “core” anymore.

 

Page 6: The authors mention forms of hybrid journalism such as “citizen journalism, or freelance/star journalism, or data journalism.” These forms of journalism have existed for decades. What makes them different now?

 

Since this evaluation we revised the paper to add here and there better clarifications that, despite these forms of journalism not being new - and here we definitely agree with the reviewer -  they have increasingly shifted from the periphery to the core.

 

Page 7: The study references the role of the audience in terms of the rise of analytics and citizen journalism. The authors should more fully integrate the influence of the audience into their discussion of media ecology. Many changes in journalism have been predicated by changes in how audiences consume news (see, for example, trends in the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report as well as Belair-Gagnon et al., 2020; Ferrer-Conill & Tandoc, 2018; Hanusch & Tandoc, 2019; Zamith, 2018).

 

As previously stated, we gave more space to the role of the audience by integrating examples from Gillespie, Boczkowski and Foot (2014), Le Masurier (2017) and Hiippala (2016), mostly because we wanted to focus on how audience behaviour has the power of influencing journalists’ decisions and thus create discursive content around journalism.

 

Page 8: To build on the discussion of the Nieman Lab predictions, how can producers and others discussing journalism take for granted emerging aspects of journalism while also recognizing change in the form of Nieman Lab predictions, for example? What are they actually commenting upon, according to authors’ conceptualizations?

We restructured the paragraph to better detail how we analyzed Nieman Lab predictions in the past decade and found that many articles published presented emerging forms of journalism that, albeit recognizable as innovative and evolutive, can be ascribed to macro categories of change that had been identified as changing aspects of journalism ten years ago.

 

Page 9: The conclusion to the study focuses more on existing definitions of “hybrid” by Witschge and Deuze and others than on the authors’ definition. How do the authors define “hybrid journalism” based on the three-part understanding they introduced? The authors could also take an example – such as data journalism – and discuss it in terms of these three facets and define how “hybrid journalism” represents a new understanding of what journalism has become. The authors should also address how their definition relates and builds upon existing theories/concepts: media ecology and media logics, in particular.

 

We expanded our conclusion to better include an explanation of how a media ecology framework could help in the analysis and study of hybrid journalism, but also to stress how our first concern is the use of the hybrid label and its fruitfulness to explore how peripheral journalism has shifted to the core of what journalism is today.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Ok, but do more primary/original research in future rather than critiquing others, which is an easy way out. 

Author Response

Many thanks for your patience and help. We will do some more original presearch, we promise.

Reviewer 3 Report

This revision improves on the previous version by offering nuance to the key theoretical frameworks informing the piece (namely media ecology and boundary work), adding detail to the discussion of the three layers within the media-ecology approach, and better situating the focus on the last 20 years as a key moment shaping changes in journalism.

These revisions have strengthened and streamlined the overall arguments. However, the manuscript remained difficult to follow at points, and the authors should engage in a careful reading/editing to smooth out the writing and ensure their novel points emerge as clearly as possible. Specific suggestions are offered below:

P. 1: This sentence was not completely clear and may be missing a few words: “We then explain which implications have for studying journalism acknowledging that the forms of journalism that cover central position in the field are hybrid.”

P. 1: Clarify the meaning of “facets” here: “In this way, our reasoning may convey the connections between journalism in its different facets from one side and media technologies from the other. “

P. 2: I’m not completely convinced that journalists took the speed-driven state of online journalism for granted. They recognized it as a necessary part of news production in the digital environment, even in its early days, and adapted their newsroom practices/routines accordingly. Also, should “capable” be “capability” here? These imply different meanings in terms of whether the authors see newsrooms as effective in their coverage. “Journalism for years has taken for granted that speed and brevity were the measures of digital journalism (on many occasions this is still true). This has shaped organizations capable of promptly covering the news.”

P. 2: The authors note that “organizational change in newsrooms has in fact been a recurring theme”; is this in research generally? If so, there is a much broader body of work than the two studies cited that should be acknowledged here.

P. 3:  The authors suggest that journalism uses its hybridity to assert its role in society - in this case, is hybridity a component of journalistic authority? The authors could clarify and reinforce this point. Also, who is part of the interpretive community determining these boundaries (recent research by Tandoc, Carlson, and others, for example, has highlighted the role of the audience in distinguishing and articulating boundaries)?

PP. 3-4: The meaning of this sentence is not clear; are the ways these forms converge evident in the content itself or in the discourse about it? “For example, in some of its hybrid forms, journalism recalls the importance of statistics, or of engaging narrative forms, or of advanced marketing techniques. Journalism therefore resorts to those discursive contexts for justifying its authority about the locus of journalism in society. To determine what is journalism.”

P. 6: The authors should clarify the meaning of “melting it (journalism) with other different items.” What types of items contribute to this process?   

P. 7: In listing examples of hybrid journalism - data journalism, open journalism, entrepreneurial journalism, WikiLeaks - and discussing the breaking down of traditional distinctions, the authors also seem to redefine “journalist.” They could engage with this shift in the conclusion. Do the authors recognize the existence of a "hybrid journalist"?

P. 8: The authors offer several interesting examples from job announcements. However, all of these represent national or international outlets. What does the authors’ conceptualization of hybrid journalism mean for local and regional media, which represent the backbone of journalism in many countries but that may not have the resources to pursue all types of hybrid journalism?

Author Response

Reply to the reviewers’ comments on the manuscript “The Hybrid Journalism We Do not Recognize (Anymore)”

We would like to thank again the precious comments made by the referee. We are obviously satisfied that our revision improved somehow the article. Now we present a proof-read version that overcomes at least some of the doubt the referee still keep.

The sentences at pag. 1, 2 or 3-4 have been corrected and misleading words eliminated

About researches on organization (pag. 2)  we mentioned that the two reference are some among many existing works

We also mentioned the idea that its hybridity is also a component for its autorityh, meant in Carlson's terms.

The sentence at pag. 6 about P. 6 “melting it (journalism) ..." has been modified and clarified

p. 7 hybrid journalist. we do not explicitly add the term "hybrid jorunalism" but the conclusions now include a discussion in those terms

 

Finally, the article has been finally proof-read