Sensationalism versus Substance: Exploring “Viral” and “Quality” Journalism in the Greek Public Sphere

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is clear, well structured and engaging. It focuses on the timely issue of journalism values and uses pertinent academic references to make a strong case for the need to examine quality journalism and viral journalism. 

The writing style is varied and appropriate, and the chosen case study is well contextualised and explained.

Several improvements are suggested. First, "viral" tends to be used to mean "clickbait", while they are not the same. Not all "viral journalism" is poor quality sensationalism, think, for instance, about #MeToo investigations from The New York Times and other newspapers that made the story resonate all over the world and social media channels. Denisova (2023) points to the instances of quality journalism that go viral, highlighting that even respected media sometimes get viral successes for good content. The confusion between "viral" and "clickbait" continues in the methodology and discussion. The study essentially looks at the popular online news websites, not the reception and sharing of the stories via social media, which would underpin virality.

Then, for actual virality, more needs to be analysed aboutbthe benevolence of algorithms and commercial social media platforms - Nahon and Hemsley's seminar work is very helpful in this regard.

More care should be taken with terminology - the contested terms like 'post-truth' and 'post-politics' are used without critical engagement and seem to be taken for granted.

Another recommendation is to clarify the method further. As qualitative analysis is announced, it is not clear what exactly method was applied to what looks like 1,630 articles. If it was discourse analysis, it is improbable that such a large sample was analysed. If it was content analysis, then the method becomes quantitative and figures are needed. Adding clarity can help improve the rigour in the methodology and discussion, as well as conclusion.

 

Overall, the paper is of good quality, but these three main suggestions should be addressed. Thanks to the authos for their work and hope the revisions are helpful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores an important dichotomy in journalism studies: quality versus viral journalism. The authors used a case study of coverage of the election of Stefanos Kasselakis in Greek media to examine how journalists at four news organizations balanced tensions between reporting on an important political story and drawing audience attention and engagement. The article interrogates importance challenges and opportunities in the digital media environments, and the Greek political and media environment is a fitting and interesting context for study. The authors also offer substantial insights into the challenges and opportunities of reporting responsibly and truthfully on political issues and topics. Further, the conceptual framework - “quality journalism” and “viral journalism” - is fitting for the story, as is the use of qualitative textual analysis of news articles.

 

The study, however, needs substantial revision before it is ready for publication. My suggestions are outlined below:

 

P. 1: In the introduction, briefly describe which scholars have contributed to defining “viral journalism” and “quality journalism” and on what definitions the current study relies.

 

P. 1: The introduction should offer a clear overview of the method and approach of the current study.

 

P. 2: The section on Navigating the Digital Landscape could offer some insights into digital media consumption from the most recent Digital News Report from the Reuters Institute. The 2024 edition will be released soon.

 

P. 2: The authors suggest, “When talking about the transition from online journalism to multimedia journalism,  content is overlooked because multimedia journalism is mainly concerned with the visual components of news.” The authors should support this statement more thoroughly. How is a focus on the visual overlooking content? 

 

P. 3: In the discussion of quality journalism, the authors should look to the foundational body of research from German scholars. See the review of this work from Urban and Schweiger (2014).

 

P. 3: The literature review section on quality journalism should more clearly synthesize and identify which aspects of quality journalism the studies they summarize are addressing. For example, some studies emphasize quality in the output, some address journalists’ views of quality, and some address the audience view.  

 

P. 3: In addition the influence of technology on journalists’ ability to produce quality journalism, the authors should address the role of economics and the emphasis on “market-driven journalism” (McManus, 1994; Cohen, 2002).

 

P. 4: The authors reference uses and gratifications briefly at the beginning of the section on viral journalism. As this theory is not addressed elsewhere int her article - and the research does not emphasize audience responses to quality and viral journalism - this reference could be removed.

 

P. 5: To further contextualize the conversation on viral journalism, the authors should look to the work of Costera Meijer (2001), who differentiates quality journalism from popular journalism - addressing them as particular approaches, rather than deviations from a normative standard. 

 

P. 5: The authors could look at vial journalism in the context of changes in the journalistic field with the arrival of digital native news outlets, such as BuzzFeed. For example, see Tandoc & Jenkins (2017); Tandoc (2018); Dennis & Sampaio-Dias (2021); and others.

 

P. 6: The authors write, “Journalists often face the dilemma of choosing between pursuing a story that will attract attention or one that requires careful research and fact-checking.” Cite relevant literature here on the role of analytics and audience considerations in journalism practice, such as work by Boczkowski (2010); Anderson (2011); Usher (2013); Tandoc (2014, 2015); Ferrer-Conill & Tandoc (2018); Lee & Tandoc (2017); Lamot & Paulussen (2020).

 

P. 6: Some sections on this page feel repetitive and seem to rely more on the authors’ summary of existing arguments and scholarship. Focus on citing research exploring quality journalism and the shifts in the media environment hat have enabled and constrained it.

 

P. 7: The authors should include their research questions at the end of the literature review. 

 

P. 7: The authors note at the beginning of the method section that viral stories can lead to consequences. What are examples of these consequences? This should be explored in the literature review. 

 

P. 8: The method sections should address how the analysis was conducted. How many articles were included? What were the selection criteria? What components were analyzed? What questions guided the analysis?

 

p. 5: The authors present the findings according to each media outlet. Why was this approach used rather than presenting themes across the outlets?

 

P. 10: The findings section focuses more on summative statements than evidence. The authors should offer more exemplars from the texts to support broader claims. The discussion of the findings should also delve more deeply into how elements of quality and viral journalism are evident in the texts, including the headlines, word usage, sourcing, topics, image selection, etc.

 

P. 12: The authors suggest that “this proves once again the pursuit of clicks and high engagement rate.”  This is difficult to prove from the articles analysis alone. Emphasize how previous research addresses what components journalists look toward in order to enhance engagement with their online content.

 

P. 16: The conclusion section should include a summary of the findings.

 

P. 16: The authors write, “Furthermore, the orientation of news organizations plays an important role in news production, as biases and norms within these organizations influence editorial decisions.” As the study focuses on texts, conclusions regarding editorial decision-making are more speculative than rooted in the analysis.

 

P. 16: The conclusion focuses more on commentary than insights from the findings. The authors should summarize the findings and connect them with existing literature on quality and viral journalism. Additionally, how does this study move scholarship forward? What new questions does it identify? Were the findings surprising, considering the types of outlets studied? How does this research reinforce or complicate existing definitions of “quality” and “viral”? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf