Mainstreaming and Weaponizing Satire in Nigerian Journalism Practice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the comments in the attached document
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1 Comment and Response
1. There is a conflation of the practice of satire and humor in journalism and satire/humor in entertainment media. The 2 forms of satire are not necessarily the same. Even though satire in entertainment media play important roles in social and political commentary, this type of satire is not necessarily a journalistic production.
Response: This observation is well noted and the work has been improved to focus more on the journalistic side.
2. The review of literature on the use of satire in Nigerian journalism is very general and nonspecific to journalistic production. Again, the review includes several references to satire in entertainment media and other kinds of non-journalistic literary productions where satire is equally deployed, such as the works of the playwright, Ken Saro Wiwa or the theater performer like Hubert Ogunde. As the author(s) note, there is a long tradition of satire in Nigerian journalism, from the colonial to the post-colonial era. The author(s) should speak specifically to that body of literature, e g the writings of “Sad Sam”, “Alla Dey”, etc.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have now tried to ‘speak to the body of literature’ in the highlighted paragraphs in page 5 and beyond. However, the specific suggestion on the writings of “Sad Sam”, “Alla Dey’’ could not be used as we struggled to get something tangible in our search.
3. Review of literature includes references to how satire in journalism or media could involve slander and defamation. But there is no discussion of any instance of cases in which satire in Nigeria journalism has resulted in prosecution for slander or libel as defamation. If such cases exist, a couple of examples are appropriate, including the dispensation of the Nigerian Courts in such cases. In other words, have Nigerian Courts ruled on cases involving slander or libel of satirical journalism or media?
Response: Again, we thank the reviewer for their critical insight. The highlighted paragraph in page 3 contains specific cases arrests and conviction of journalists for defamation and other charges as a result of satirical piece they published.
4. The author(s) say they adopt an Agenda setting and Media framing theoretical approach. This would be fine if they actually do. But the mixed method utilized in this study has nothing to do with agenda setting or media framing. An agenda setting study does quantify and track issue agenda published in media from Time 1 to Time 2, and makes measurements about how such issues evolve, e.g., by volume or audience perceptions of the agenda. And as for media framing, there can be no media framing study without actually interrogating media content of media, such as by textual analysis or content analysis. Contrary to these procedures, what the authors have done in this study is simply compile the self-reported perceptions of 10 subjects (journalists, cartoonists, satirists), selfreported evaluations of their journalistic production/performance. The author(s) did not actually examine any particular journalistic content produced by the subjects, to see how they frame their satirical production. So, there is no media framing of any kind done on media content. And then they compared what the 10 purposely sampled subjects say with a comparison panel of a sample of 570 subjects who filled a semi structured survey on ethics of journalism.
Response: We apologise for using the two theories wrongly. After some extensive search and discussion we have replaced the theories. We now have perception theory which we consider more appropriate for the study.
5. The narrative provided in the Results section of the manuscript is an unwieldy mirror of 2 sets of subjects giving self-reported perceptions and evaluations of how they think they engage in journalistic performance in the context of ethical constructs they were asked to evaluate. Whereas it might be useful to know what they think of the ethical questions posed, nothing in the study shows that what they say actually manifests in their journalistic work.
Response: Again, we feel very sorry for not making this obvious. We feel that the answers provided by the participants reflect the research question we asked on- How do print media satirical journalists and cartoonists view the ethical boundaries of satire in Nigerian journalism, and how do they navigate these boundaries in their work? We admit that we could have probed how what they say actually manifests in their journalistic work. But there is always room for further studies.
6. Finally, the author(s) include a component of satire in digital social media as part of the universe of sampling that the study intends to cover. Aside from the fact no specific social media content was examined or analyzed, this component of the study should be excised because not all satirical performances in the social media space are journalistic productions. And this is the same reason why some of the satirists included as subject interviewers should be excluded from the study if they are not journalists.
Response: This advice is taken seriously. This has been deleted. The work now majorly focuses on mainstream media – newspapers
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you very much for the opportunity to review this manuscript that investigates the mainstreaming and weaponization of satire into Nigerian journalism. According to the paper’s research questions, it aims to understand how mainstreaming of satire influences the work and attitudes of journalists, cartoonists, and satirists; how print journalists, cartoonists, satirists navigate ethical questions in relation to the mainstreaming of satire; how satire poses challenges to misinformation, defamation, and ethical concerns. This is an interesting study, but I think it needs major rework as I indicate below.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
The author(s) apply the theories of Agenda Setting and Framing in this study which uses interviews. I do not think these two theories are applicable here. Agenda Setting and Framing theories work with content analysis, and I do not see how this is applicable here where the author(s) are seeking the opinions of journalists, cartoonists, and satirists. This section would need major revision.
Literature Review
The author(s) also need to diversify their literature with perspectives from the Global South. There is literature that can also help them improve their article in significant ways. Below are just examples:
Eko, L. (2007). It’s a Political Jungle Out There: How Four African Newspaper Cartoons Dehumanized and `Deterritorialized’ African Political Leaders in the Post-Cold War Era. International Communication Gazette, 69(3), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048507076577
Eko, L. (2015). The art of satirical deterritorialization: Shifting cartoons from real space to cyberspace in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Communication Gazette, 77(3), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048514568759
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C1&q=Satirical+journalism+in+Sub-Saharan+Africa+&btnG=
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23743670.2021.2046397
Definition of terms
The author(s) need to do better work defining what they mean by “mainstreaming” and “weaponization” of satire. For instance, does satire mainstreaming mean its rise in popularity or integration into the mainstream press?
Research Questions
The first research question refers to
“attitudes” but does not specify attitudes towards what exactly. This may need clarification.
Results Section
It is great that the author(s) organize their results thematically. However, the paragraphs used to explore these themes lack topic sentences and interpretation. The author(s) may need to work on this as well.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this manuscript that investigates the mainstreaming and weaponization of satire into Nigerian journalism. According to the paper’s research questions, it aims to understand how mainstreaming of satire influences the work and attitudes of journalists, cartoonists, and satirists; how print journalists, cartoonists, satirists navigate ethical questions in relation to the mainstreaming of satire; how satire poses challenges to misinformation, defamation, and ethical concerns. This is an interesting study, but I think it needs major rework as I indicate below.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
The author(s) apply the theories of Agenda Setting and Framing in this study which uses interviews. I do not think these two theories are applicable here. Agenda Setting and Framing theories work with content analysis, and I do not see how this is applicable here where the author(s) are seeking the opinions of journalists, cartoonists, and satirists. This section would need major revision.
Literature Review
The author(s) also need to diversify their literature with perspectives from the Global South. There is literature that can also help them improve their article in significant ways. Below are just examples:
Eko, L. (2007). It’s a Political Jungle Out There: How Four African Newspaper Cartoons Dehumanized and `Deterritorialized’ African Political Leaders in the Post-Cold War Era. International Communication Gazette, 69(3), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048507076577
Eko, L. (2015). The art of satirical deterritorialization: Shifting cartoons from real space to cyberspace in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Communication Gazette, 77(3), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048514568759
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C1&q=Satirical+journalism+in+Sub-Saharan+Africa+&btnG=
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23743670.2021.2046397
Definition of terms
The author(s) need to do better work defining what they mean by “mainstreaming” and “weaponization” of satire. For instance, does satire mainstreaming mean its rise in popularity or integration into the mainstream press?
Research Questions
The first research question refers to
“attitudes” but does not specify attitudes towards what exactly. This may need clarification.
Results Section
It is great that the author(s) organize their results thematically. However, the paragraphs used to explore these themes lack topic sentences and interpretation. The author(s) may need to work on this as well.
Author Response
Reviewer 2 comments and our responses
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
The author(s) apply the theories of Agenda Setting and Framing in this study which uses interviews.
I do not think these two theories are applicable here. Agenda Setting and Framing theories work with content analysis, and I do not see how this is applicable here where the author(s) are seeking the opinions of journalists, cartoonists, and satirists. This section would need major revision.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. This comment is consistent with what the other reviewer also observed. The choice of the two theories was wrong. We have chosen Perception Theory to replace those ones. We consider it more appropriate for this study. See pages 7 – 8 of the improved copy.
Literature Review
The author(s) also need to diversify their literature with perspectives from the Global South. There is literature that can also help them improve their article in significant ways. Below are just
examples: Eko, L. (2007; 2015).
Response: This advice is taken seriously. We have updated our literature accordingly. The highlighted paragraphs attest to this update.
Definition of terms
The author(s) need to do better work defining what they mean by “mainstreaming” and “weaponization” of satire. For instance, does satire mainstreaming mean its rise in popularity or integration into the mainstream press?
Response: The operational definitions of mainstreaming and weaponization have been provided and highlighted in page 4 and 15 respectively.
Research Questions
The first research question refers to “attitudes” but does not specify attitudes towards what exactly. This may need clarification.
Response: We consider the inclusion of ‘attitudes’ RQ1 as a mistake. We have deleted it to avoid any confusion.
Results Section
It is great that the author(s) organize their results thematically. However, the paragraphs used to explore these themes lack topic sentences and interpretation. The author(s) may need to work on this as well.
Response: In the said Result Section, we think that we arranged the work into themes to reflect the three RQs. The paragraphs under each theme provided support to the narratives. We plead with the reviewer to see it from that perspective.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article's topic is highly relevant, topical, and will be a great contribution to the special issue. However, it could make a few things clearer: there is tension right now in the article's local spotlight on Nigeria (crucial for bringing satire there to international attention) and the sources that often treat very different geopolitical spaces. There is no clear definition of satire (in order to justify the claims for ethics), or what counts as journalism (in order to make the distinction to satire in journalism). The term "slander" is introduced early on but turns out to be of no relevance for the argument or article as such; this is a pity. There should also be more interpretive and argumentative engagement with the testimony that is presented here. For now, the article engages in a lot of paraphrase and repetition; the testimony is fed into the discussion of the research questions, but little seems to come of it. There are hardly any concrete examples to show what the article's more sweeping or generalizing statements actually mean and look like in Nigeria's mediascape.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The prose is good overall but needs a few touch-ups. The enumerations are off, but that is an easy fix. (see pdf)
Author Response
Reviewer 3 comments and Response
Comments are many and will be hard to itemise here
Thanks for putting finishing touches to our work. The typos, errors etc. are regretted. All the suggestions have been reflected in the new copy.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. This is much improved revision.
2. the literature review is robust and comprehensive. The citations are appropriate.
3. the justification and discussion of the review literature are adequate.
4. the research design is acceptable. A key missing element is the omission of artifacts (satirical texts and cartoons) that should have been used as analytical frames for interview subjects to interrogate.
5. In light of Comment #4 above, the study is really about the perceptions, claims, and thoughts about use of satire and cartoons in Nigerian journalism. These perceptions and claims lack substantive evidence supporting the claims made by the the satirists and cartoonists about the supposed meanings, reach, impact, and ethical implications attributed to the cartoons and satire published in the media. This is the main gap in the manuscript.
6. considering Comment #5 above, I am uncomfortable using the term “weaponization” in reference to the use of satire and cartoons in Nigerian journalism. I am OK with them referencing weaponization in the discussion, as used, but with the recognition that no specific weaponized content was shown or interrogated in the study.
However, I will insist that the authors consider retitling the manuscript: “Perceptions, Motivations, and Ethical Considerations for Mainstreaming Satire in Nigerian Journalism.”
Author Response
We're grateful to the reviewer for the useful suggestions that have shaped the manuscript to its current status. The points raised are addressed one after the other. The other highlights in the manuscript are grammatical corrections.
1. This is much improved revision.
We thank the reviewer for such kind words. We’re happy that through the suggestions offered by the reviewers and the editorial team, the manuscript has been improved to its viable status.
2. the literature review is robust and comprehensive. The citations are appropriate.
Again, this comment gladdens our hearts. We’re happy that the reviewer finds our literature review robust and comprehensive.
3. the justification and discussion of the review literature are adequate.
We also thank the reviewer for the kind words regarding the adequacy of the justification and discussion of the reviewed literature.
4. the research design is acceptable. A key missing element is the omission of artifacts (satirical texts and cartoons) that should have been used as analytical frames for interview subjects to interrogate.
Once again, we thank the reviewer for accepting our research design. The reviewer rightly observed that the key missing element in the method is the omission of artifacts (satirical texts and cartoons) that should have been used as analytical frames for interview subjects to interrogate. We regret this omission and have taken note of this suggestion for our subsequent submissions.
5. In light of Comment #4 above, the study is really about the perceptions, claims, and thoughts about use of satire and cartoons in Nigerian journalism. These perceptions and claims lack substantive evidence supporting the claims made by the the satirists and cartoonists about the supposed meanings, reach, impact, and ethical implications attributed to the cartoons and satire published in the media. This is the main gap in the manuscript.
The reviewer also observed that the major gap in the manuscript is that the study is about the perceptions, claims, and thoughts about use of satire and cartoons in Nigerian journalism; and that these perceptions and claims lack substantive evidence supporting the claims made by the satirists and cartoonists about the supposed meanings, reach, impact, and ethical implications attributed to the cartoons and satire published in the media. This is very unfortunate. However, we actually think that the perceptions of the participants addressed these concerns albeit tangentially.
6. considering Comment #5 above, I am uncomfortable using the term “weaponization” in reference to the use of satire and cartoons in Nigerian journalism. I am OK with them referencing weaponization in the discussion, as used, but with the recognition that no specific weaponized content was shown or interrogated in the study.
However, I will insist that the authors consider retitling the manuscript: “Perceptions, Motivations, and Ethical Considerations for Mainstreaming Satire in Nigerian Journalism.”
The reviewer is not comfortable ‘using the term “weaponization” in reference to the use of satire and cartoons in Nigerian journalism and suggested referencing weaponization in the discussion, as used, but with the recognition that no specific weaponized content was shown or interrogated in the study’. We regret not using satirical texts and cartoons to assess the weaponization of satire in Nigerian journalism. As such, the reviewer suggested that the manuscript be retitled to read as “Perceptions, Motivations, and Ethical Considerations for Mainstreaming Satire in Nigerian Journalism’’.
Without undermining the reviewers’ observation, we think that the context within which we defined and explored ‘weaponization’ in the study makes its inclusion in the title of the manuscript important. Throughout the work, particularly in 3.3, we employed ‘weaponization’ to mean using satire to attack, ridicule, criticise and undermine people, authorities or ideas. In this instance, satire is seen as a weapon, a tool, or even a licence to attack or question social anomalies, institution or ideas.
Although we would have preferred the title of the work to remain, as we think that removing ‘weaponisation’ would possibly affect the texture of the work, we accept the reviewer’s suggested title “Perceptions, Motivations, and Ethical Considerations for Mainstreaming Satire in Nigerian Journalism’’ as the new title of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you very much for the opportunity to review this manuscript once again. At this point, I am satisfied with all the revisions that the author(s) have made.
Author Response
Thank you, reviewer for being satisfied with the amount of revisions done in the manuscript. Thanks for your wonderful suggestions and comments that helped to improve the work.
