New Routines in Making the Local News: How Fear and Distancing Change the Coverage of Violence in Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very important piece of research to have published. However, its structure is incredibly confusing. The subheadings do not indicate what the reader is about to read. There appears to be interviews analysed before the findings chapter, with the result that some of the findings are presented before the methodology section. Adding to the confusion is the mix of referencing styles - in some instances there are in-text references (Grupillo, 2018, p. 60 - for eg) and in others references are situated in footnotes. Then there are - what I presume are - interviews, which are not attributed, but are referenced in-text. Figure 1 is also missing. This would be publishable - and it should be published - if the subheadings made sense, and there was some consistency in referencing. I do hope this helps.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear colleague,  

First of all, I would like to thank you immensely for the contributions made to the improvement of the text. I identify below some changes and explanations that may help solve the problems pointed out:  

1 – Before the methodology of the study itself, we tried to contextualize the existing discussions about the problems pointed out in the text, namely, the threats and murders of journalists during work, the fear of journalists in participating in certain coverages related to violence , the security protocols adopted by companies and the limits that such problems impose on journalism. In this context, we used some statements taken from newspapers and even interviews with journalists present in other papers related to the theme. Perhaps because of this, the evaluator confused these statements with the results of the study itself. To solve the problem, we improved the structure of the introductory text and the sections presented before the methodology. We remember that, in our study, the informants are not identified, hence the use of terms such as “journalist 1”.

2 – The references were expanded and also added in the introduction.

3 – Other points of correction were the titles of the sections, which we tried to make more adequate to the problem presented.

4- The title of the work was also modified to make it clearer to readers about what the paper intends to discuss.

5 – We did not identify the absence of Figure 1 at work. In any case, we pay attention to the change in the structure of the article, which led to Figure 2 for the results section.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the article Local news and urban violence: gap and dependence of citizen co-production. Firstly, I found the topic to be fascinating and the data to be extraordinary. The authors are covering something important for journalism studies and future public policies. Therefore, I am sure this has the potential to be a significant contribution. However, from my perspective, several changes are needed. 

Title: The data allow the authors to make claims from the reporters' perspective and perhaps to inform citizen co-production. Although the background on citizen journalism needs to be contextualized, you do not have the input to focus the manuscript on this. Therefore, I would recommend dropping the citizen co-production part and concentrating on local newsmaking in light of violence against journalists.

Introduction: although compelling, you should theoretically frame the debate. For instance, which authors, themes, and cases inform your research. Otherwise, it is a testimonial report, so it hardly has academic value. Finally, what is the research question beyond describing a very particular situation?

Lit review: I recommend choosing the key terms more carefully because this would help guide the literature review. For instance, how newsrooms are impacted by violence, fear, or routine journalistic changes. These are more relevant than local news and urban violence (which are also needed but not your primary literature uptake). Citizen co-production is not problematized; again, you I believe yo do do not have the data to argue about it. 

Methodology: I do understand the value of interviews, and it is of great importance to have the voice of editors, chief reporters, producers, and so forth. So, how and why did you choose them? Is it possible that all voices and experiences are valued the same? Because qualitative methods are about the how and the why and also the diversity of perspectives. Therefore, if you let the reader know the themes guiding your questions, the value of having different positions inside a newsroom, and more importantly, how you are conducting the analysis, then you strenght the paper. 

Discussion and conclusion: sadly very poor, overall descriptive. Moreover, it doesn't connect with the rest of the manuscript. It is important

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This research is - generally - to a publishable standard. The issue remains with the headings, however. If the authors are "contextualising existing discussions", then they need to tell readers this is what they are doing (using subheads), otherwise this "contextualisation" looks like findings and discussion. Other than that I really like this work and want to see it published.

Author Response

Dear colleague,

Again, we thank you for your contribution to improving the work. In order to avoid any doubt about the content of the discussions, we changed the subtitles once again and chose to use words that refer exactly to what we would like to talk about.

Sincerely

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed my major concerns, and the article is almost ready to publish. I recommend checking the English, particularly the updated title.

Author Response

Dear colleague,

Again, we thank you for your contribution to improving the work. We made a new review and adjustments in English.

Sincerely