Framing Income Inequality: How the Spanish Media Reported on Disparities during the First Year of the Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an interesting research topic which is how the Spanish media covered the COVID 19 pandemic in light of inequality. However, there are aspects that must be kept in mind for its acceptance.

- The introduction should explain what the research is about. It is only focused on the issue of inequality.

- Although the research is on media framing, the literature review and its explanation is extremely deficient in the theoretical framework. Almost inexistent. They do not realize the main authors and theories of media framing. Is there previous research on this topic?

- If the topic is about the coverage of the Spanish media, it is urgent that an overview of the Spanish media system be made in the theoretical framework.

- If the method to analyze media coverage is through Quantitative Content Analysis, the use of hypotheses and not research questions is recommended.

 

- What methodological model for framing analysis did this research use as a reference.

- Regarding the methodology, there is a lack of further explanation of the code book.

- The investigation must explain how the media sample was obtained.

- The steps and coders who analyzed the sample need to be detailed.

Author Response

The introduction should explain what the research is about. It is only focused on the issue of inequality.

100% changed.

We have incorporated two paragraphs at the end of point 1 (lines 52-60):

 

The aim of this article is to shed some light on how the media, specifically in Spain, treated the increasing income inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, it is necessary to consider that media have historically influenced the eco-nomic policies to confront inequality (Guardino, 2019). In addition, due to journalistic routines, the media rely on information sources that, depending on their position on this situation of inequality, use positive or negative frames (Dover, 2022).

This research seeks to know how, in the context of a new situation - COVID 19 -, which has increased the problem of inequality, media define it and what aspects re-sulting from journalistic routines affect this process of conceptualization.

 

- Although the research is on media framing, the literature review and its explanation is extremely deficient in the theoretical framework. Almost inexistent. They do not realize the main authors and theories of media framing. Is there previous research on this topic?

100% changed.

We have reorganized section 1.2. Framing inequality, bringing to the beginning of the section the aspects that explain framing theory in general and introducing an initial paragraph defining the theory and its main characteristics (lines 128-136):

 

The issues reported by the media are defined and characterized as they are de-veloped in their news; in other words, when the media report on an event, they frame it. The framing theory refers to this ability to define and fix the public's attention on a specific way of understanding social problems (Scheufele, 1999). Thus, through the se-lective exposure of some specific aspects and through the repetition of these frames, a way of understanding the social reality is reinforced (Entman, 1993). For this purpose, the media rely on aspects connected to the newsworthiness of the issues (Harcup and O'Neill 2001, 2017; Galtung and Ruge 1965), but also by other influences present in the journalistic production process (Shoemaker & Reese, 2014).

 

- If the topic is about the coverage of the Spanish media, it is urgent that an overview of the Spanish media system be made in the theoretical framework.

100% changed.

We have introduced a new item 1.3. The Spanish media system (lines 218-235):

 

To truly understand how Spanish media covers stories, it is essential to examine its structural foundations. The media landscape in Spain is characterized by two primary forms of ownership: public and private. Public broadcasters like RTVE (Radiotelevisión Española) are government-funded entities that prioritize news and cultural programming. Conversely, private enterprises such as Mediaset España and Atresmedia dominate the commercial television sector (Medina Nieto and Labio-Bernal, 2019). Print media in Spain offers a diverse spectrum, with major newspapers like El País owned by PRISA, ABC by the traditional business VOCENTO, El Mundo by RCS Group, and La Vanguardia by the Catalan family-owned group Godó. Additionally, digital platforms like eldiario.es and elconfidencial.com, operated by independent companies, are increasingly influential, disrupting traditional media dynamics.

Thus, the media system in Spain aligns with the framework established by Hallin and Mancini (2004) in their seminal work Comparing Media Systems, where they classify it under the polarized pluralism model. Recent studies further reinforce this characterization, indicating a strong governmental intervention and presence, underscoring the prevalence of polarized pluralism with significant state involvement (Fernández-Viso and Fernández-Alonso 2024; Labio-Bernal et al. 2024).

 

- If the method to analyze media coverage is through Quantitative Content Analysis, the use of hypotheses and not research questions is recommended.

No change.

Although we consider this assessment to be very timely, it would be somewhat "tricky" to establish hypotheses a posteriori.

 

- What methodological model for framing analysis did this research use as a reference.

Partially changed.

In the research questions, we have explained more clearly how our variables are developed from the perspective of issue-specific frames, domestic frames and also from the perspective of influences on Shoemaker and Reese's production processes (lines 252-267):

 

RQ1 How was inequality framed in the media during the first year of the pan-demic according to media coverage?

RQ1.1 How was inequality defined in the media, from the perspective of is-sue-specific frames (types of inequality, the associated gaps, the micro/macro frame, and the main consequence of inequality) during the first year of the pan-demic according to news coverage?

RQ1.2. How have other contextual aspects, from the perspective of domestic frames, related to news routines, (main topic, the geographical area or the main source) influenced the framing of inequality?

RQ2 What was the degree of depth  of the coverage of inequality, from the per-spective of issue-specific frames, by the media analysed during the pandemic?

RQ2.1 Do contextual aspects (main topic, geographical area, and main source) influence the quality of the reporting carried out?

RQ2.2 Are there other elements, related to the influences in the journalistic production processes, such as media ideology, authorship, media location or journalistic function, that influence this level of deepening of the coverage?

 

- Regarding the methodology, there is a lack of further explanation of the code book.

Partially changed.

We consider that the variables are adequately explained in the methodology between lines 303 and 318 and we have added an explanation of the construction of the scale that measures the depth of inequality coverage (lines 319-323):

 

The level of depth in addressing inequality is calculated using a scale between 0 and 11 points, based on: the presence/absence of each of the inequalities measured (0-5), the presence/absence of each of the gaps measured (0-4), the presence/absence of a geographical context (0-1), the presence/absence of a specific framing (0-1) and the presence/absence of a main consequence (0-1).

 

We have also added a reference that gives access to the codebook (as well as to the database and the results of the intercoders' agreement) deposited in the Zenodo repository (lines 298-299):

 

relying on a codebook (Odriozola-Chéne & Pérez-Arozamena, 2022b). 

 

- The investigation must explain how the media sample was obtained.

Partially changed.

Media selection had already been explained previously (lines 274-279). A table has been added with the ideology and ownership of the selected media:

 

Table 1. Digital media and ideology

MEDIA	IDEOLOGY	OWNERSHIP
ABC.ES	Conservative	Vocento
ELCONFIDENCIAL.COM	Liberal	Titania Compañía Editorial
ELDIARIO.ES	Social democratic	Diario de Prensa Digital
ELMUNDO.ES	Liberal	RCS MediaGroup
ELPAIS.COM	Social democratic	PRISA
LAVANGUARDIA.COM	Liberal	Godó

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

 

In addition, it has been explained how the specific sample was obtained (lines 290-295):

 

The sample was obtained from an advanced Google search in each of the media for the terms "inequality" and "coronavirus". After this first selection, a manual review of each content was carried out to determine whether the coincidence of these terms was coin-cidental or causal, eliminating from the population those publications in which the re-lationship between the two was not direct.

 

- The steps and coders who analyzed the sample need to be detailed.

100% changed.

We have introduced a paragraph explaining the process and identifying the coders who are the authors of the article (lines 297-302):

 

The analysis of the news items was carried out by the authors of the article, who, being the designers of the research and relying on a codebook (Odriozola-Chéne & Pé-rez-Arozamena, 2022b), were able to develop a correct coding. In addition, before the analysis of the total sample, the intercoder agreement was calculated using Krippen-dorff's alpha index (Krippendorff, 2004). The degree of agreement for each variable can be seen below when each variable is mentioned.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The topic is crucial for understanding how media address the issue of inequality, especially during significant events like the COVID-19 pandemic. The descriptive statistics provided in the study are valuable for showing how media report on income inequality and identifying potential issues. However, while the study is insightful, it could benefit from a stronger theoretical contribution, and some of the research questions posed are not fully addressed. The following aspects of the study would benefit from further development and clarification:

 

Introduction:

1.    The introduction provides some context but could benefit from a clearer statement regarding the research gap and the significance of the study. It would be helpful to clearly articulate what existing literature overlooks and why this study is important in filling those gaps. Highlighting how this study contributes to existing research would enhance its impact.

 

Literature Review:

2.    While the literature review covers several concepts like the Model of Ideology Diffusion, framing inequality, and the hybrid media system, it may feel a bit disconnected. Consider focusing on fewer, more relevant theories directly related to the research questions. Streamlining the literature review would help to emphasize the theoretical framework supporting your study more effectively.

 

3.    It’s essential to provide sufficient rationale for research questions in the literature review. Previous studies and research gaps should justify why these specific research questions are being posed. The author needs to clarify how content analysis answers these research questions and explain how the study design and research method will address contextual aspects.

 

4.    Comment on Lines 182-184 (RQ1.2): The research question aims to understand how domestic frames influence the framing of inequality. While content analysis helps identify what is being communicated, it doesn’t necessarily explain why or how certain outcomes occur. The author should carefully consider how content analysis addresses the research question and provide clarity on how the study design and research method will account for contextual factors.

 

5.    Comment on Lines 185-186 (“Degree of Depth”): The term “degree of depth” is not defined in the literature review. It’s crucial to provide a clear definition for this concept within the context of the study. Consider elaborating on what “degree of depth” means and how it relates to the research objectives.

 

6.    Comments on RQ 2.1 and RQ 2.2 (Lines 187-191): Similar issues exist with RQ 2.1 and RQ 2.2. The author should address these concerns by providing more context and clarity. Explain how the research questions align with the study’s goals and how the chosen methodology will explore the relevant aspects.

Methodology:

The methodology mentions the use of content analysis and stratified sampling but lacks detailed explanation.

7.    To ensure transparency, the study sampled 2,727 media stories, along with a stratified subset of 958 stories. The collection process involved rigorous criteria, which should be elaborated upon. Consider providing details on how these stories were gathered and the specific sampling criteria employed.

 

8.    It would enhance the reader’s understanding if the study included illustrative examples of the types of media stories analyzed. These examples can serve as concrete references and contribute to the overall clarity of the research.

 

9.    Elaborate on the coding process. How were the coders trained? Additionally, reporting the inter-coder reliability—backed by specific statistical measures—will strengthen the study’s credibility. Transparency in this area is crucial for robust research.

 

10. Explain the rationale behind the scale used to measure the degree of depth. Describe the criteria and the step-by-step process for developing this scale. Clarity here will help readers understand how depth was operationalized.

 

Results:

11. Present the results of ANOVA tests and post-hoc analyses following APA style guidelines.

 

12. concise tables summarizing key findings will enhance the readability of the results section.

Discussion:

13. Expand on the theoretical contributions of your findings. How do they add to the existing body of knowledge?

 

14. Discuss practical implications, especially for policymakers and media practitioners.

 

15. Address the limitations of your research and suggest areas for future studies.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofread the manuscript to eliminate redundant phrases and ensure clarity and conciseness throughout the text.

Author Response

- The introduction provides some context but could benefit from a clearer statement regarding the research gap and the significance of the study. It would be helpful to clearly articulate what existing literature overlooks and why this study is important in filling those gaps. Highlighting how this study contributes to existing research would enhance its impact.

100% changed

Three paragraphs covering these gaps have been inserted at the end of the introduction (lines 43-60):

 

Currently, in this context, the global pandemic has made the poor poorer (Dizioli et al. 2020). In Spain, poverty has increased. For the first time since the pandemic be-gan there are official income data that take into account the impact of COVID-19 on Spanish households. The Living Conditions Survey of the National Statistics Institute (NSI 2022) has confirmed the worst estimates of the last two years: the percentage of the population at risk of poverty or social exclusion has increased and now stands at 27.8%, which is the highest rate since 2016. Likewise, the coronavirus crisis has condi-tioned the media's own treatment of inequality since 2020 (Masip et al. 2021; Odriozo-la-Chéné and Pérez-Arozamena 2022a; Van Aelst and Blumer 2021).

The aim of this article is to shed some light on how the media, specifically in Spain, treated the increasing income inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, it is necessary to consider that media have historically influenced the eco-nomic policies to confront inequality (Guardino, 2019). In addition, due to journalistic routines, the media rely on information sources that, depending on their position on this situation of inequality, use positive or negative frames (Dover, 2022).

This research seeks to know how, in the context of a new situation - COVID 19 -, which has increased the problem of inequality, media define it and what aspects re-sulting from journalistic routines affect this process of conceptualization.

 

- While the literature review covers several concepts like the Model of Ideology Diffusion, framing inequality, and the hybrid media system, it may feel a bit disconnected. Consider focusing on fewer, more relevant theories directly related to the research questions. Streamlining the literature review would help to emphasize the theoretical framework supporting your study more effectively.

Partially changed.

We have eliminated certain questions that could distort the objective of the research (lines 75-81 and lines 92-99), keeping others that we consider appropriate to explain the design and objectives of the research.

 

- It’s essential to provide sufficient rationale for research questions in the literature review. Previous studies and research gaps should justify why these specific research questions are being posed. The author needs to clarify how content analysis answers these research questions and explain how the study design and research method will address contextual aspects.

Comment on Lines 182-184 (RQ1.2): The research question aims to understand how domestic frames influence the framing of inequality. While content analysis helps identify what is being communicated, it doesn’t necessarily explain why or how certain outcomes occur. The author should carefully consider how content analysis addresses the research question and provide clarity on how the study design and research method will account for contextual factors.

Comment on Lines 185-186 (“Degree of Depth”): The term “degree of depth” is not defined in the literature review. It’s crucial to provide a clear definition for

this concept within the context of the study. Consider elaborating on what

“degree of depth” means and how it relates to the research objectives.

Comments on RQ 2.1 and RQ 2.2 (Lines 187-191): Similar issues exist with RQ 2.1 and RQ 2.2. The author should address these concerns by providing more context and clarity. Explain how the research questions align with the study’s goals and how the chosen methodology will explore the relevant aspects.

Partially changed.

Throughout the research questions, the explanation of the variables in the methodology and the explanation of the results, we have clearly introduced mentions of how our variables of the analysis refer to the concepts mentioned in the literature review (issue-specific frames, domestic frames, influences in journalistic production process).

 

- To ensure transparency, the study sampled 2,727 media stories, along with a stratified subset of 958 stories. The collection process involved rigorous criteria, which should be elaborated upon. Consider providing details on how these stories were gathered and the specific sampling criteria employed.

100% changed.

In this case, stratified sampling had already been specified previously and responded to two criteria: quarters of the year of analysis and weight in the overall population of each of the media (lines 294-296).

We have now also explained the selection process for each of the specific samples (lines 290-294):

 

The sample was obtained from an advanced Google search in each of the media for the terms "inequality" and "coronavirus". After this first selection, a manual review of each content was carried out to determine whether the coincidence of these terms was coin-cidental or causal, eliminating from the population those publications in which the re-lationship between the two was not direct.

 

- It would enhance the reader’s understanding if the study included illustrative examples of the types of media stories analyzed. These examples can serve as concrete references and contribute to the overall clarity of the research.

No changes.

We consider that the publication is destined to a specialized public that has the ability to distinguish between a news item, a report, an interview, an opinion article... If it were an divulgative text or if the reviewer and the journal's editor consider it strictly necessary, we would proceed to give these examples.

 

- Elaborate on the coding process. How were the coders trained? Additionally, reporting the inter-coder reliability—backed by specific statistical measures—will strengthen the study’s credibility. Transparency in this area is crucial for robust research.

100% changed.

We have added a paragraph (lines 297-302), where we state that the authors of the article are the coders themselves. In addition, we have explicitly indicated that the value accompanying each variable (which already appeared in the previous version of the article) refers to Krippendorff's alpha index, which measures the inter-coder agreement. Finally, a reference has been introduced giving access to the research database, its codebook and the results of inter-coder agreement:

 

The analysis of the news items was carried out by the authors of the article, who, being the designers of the research and relying on a codebook (Odriozola-Chéne & Pé-rez-Arozamena, 2022b), were able to develop a correct coding. In addition, before the analysis of the total sample, the intercoder agreement was calculated using Krippen-dorff's alpha index (Krippendorff, 2004). The degree of agreement for each variable can be seen below when each variable is mentioned.

 

- Explain the rationale behind the scale used to measure the degree of depth. Describe the criteria and the step-by-step process for developing this scale. Clarity here will help readers understand how depth was operationalized.

100% changed.

The process of creating the scale that measures the depth of inequality coverage has been explained (lines 319-323):

 

The level of depth in addressing inequality is calculated using a scale between 0 and 11 points, based on: the presence/absence of each of the inequalities measured (0-5), the presence/absence of each of the gaps measured (0-4), the presence/absence of a geographical context (0-1), the presence/absence of a specific framing (0-1) and the presence/absence of a main consequence (0-1).

 

- Present the results of ANOVA tests and post-hoc analyses following APA style guidelines.

100% changed.

In the results section, the data have been entered in the text according to the aforementioned style, modifying abbreviations (s.d for SD) and adding the data necessary to explain the ANOVA calculation, as well as the tables that were already present. Example (lines 423-426):

 

The other geographical frames show a level of depth below the average, and the dif-ferences detected are statistically significant (F(5, 592) = 12.347, p = 0.000, n2 = 0.061): local (M=3.77, SD =1.525); regional (M=3.90, SD =1.635); national (M=3.88, SD =1.638); EU (M=3,65, SD =1.706) and not applicable (M=2.96, SD =1.934).

 

- Concise tables summarizing key findings will enhance the readability of the results section.

Partially changed.

These summary tables have been created, but it has been considered appropriate that they appear in the Discussion section:

 

Table 6. Issue-specific frame analysis

Types of inequalities	Inequality level of inequality	Social gaps	Main consequence
Income inequality: 67.4%	Micro level: 62.8%	Social class: 48.6%	Poverty: 54.5%
Wealth inequality: 30.2%	Macro level: 14.9%	Gender: 15.3%	None: 15.3%
Inequality of opportunities in health: 22.6%	Both: 7.6%	Racial: 9%	Policy and economic actions: 13.2%
Inequality of opportunities in education: 20.5%	Not applicable: 14.6%	Generational: 6.9%	Other: 10.4%
Inequality of opportunities in research: 1.4%			Changes to the current social system: 6.6%

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

 

Table 7. Domestic frames and other variables analysis: in-depth media coverage

 

CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES REALTED TO DOMESTIC FRAMES (NEWS ROUTINES)
Geographical context	Main topic	Main source
National and EU news	Labour and social issues	ONG's, supranational institutions, civil servants and experts
OTHER VARIABLES RELATED TO THE INFLUENCES IN THE JOURNALISTIC PRODUCTION
Media ideology	Authorship	Media location	Journalistic function
Social-democratic ideology	Non journalistic collaborators, journalists and agencies	None	None

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

 

- Expand on the theoretical contributions of your findings. How do they add to the existing body of knowledge?

No changed.

We consider that these contributions are clearly reflected in the Conclusions section (lines 568-638).

 

- Discuss practical implications, especially for policymakers and media practitioners.

100% changed

We have added a paragraph with these contributions (lines 639-647):

 

Thus, research should raise journalists' awareness in order to improve their re-porting on inequality. In order to avoid framing the issue in terms of conflict and po-litical polemics, journalists can rely on the support of non-traditional sources of infor-mation that allow to delve into the different perspectives of this social problem. In ad-dition, politicians should be aware that, confronted with an issue that has regained visibility on the media agendas, new actors have emerged from social movements, su-pranational organizations or the scientific field, on which journalists can rely to satisfy the information demand of the audiences. Therefore, the issue can be relevant on the media, without traditional political actors contributing to its definition.

 

- Address the limitations of your research and suggest areas for future studies.

100% changed

We have added a paragraph with these contributions (lines 648-652):

 

Finally, it is necessary to highlight that other elements, which are neither implic-itly nor explicitly reflected in the journalistic stories and which can influence the cov-erage of inequality, could not be measured as a result of the design of the analysis. Furthermore, the quantitative nature of the research limits its capacity to deepen some of the results obtained.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Everything is correct in this proposal, which follows some other pieces previously published by the authors, so this is coherent with their trajectory and career, and corresponds to their specialization.

Just one thing I think taht could be added, regarding the ideology or aligment of the chosen media to be analysed. Also, some numbers on their diffusion on the period of time used in the paper would be welcome.

 

Author Response

Just one thing I think that could be added, regarding the ideology or alignment of the chosen media to be analysed. Also, some numbers on their diffusion on the period of time used in the paper would be welcome.

Partially changed.

We have included a table with the information about alignment and property:

 

Table 1. Digital media and ideology

MEDIA	IDEOLOGY	OWNERSHIP
ABC.ES	Conservative	Vocento
ELCONFIDENCIAL.COM	Liberal	Titania Compañía Editorial
ELDIARIO.ES	Social democratic	Diario de Prensa Digital
ELMUNDO.ES	Liberal	RCS MediaGroup
ELPAIS.COM	Social democratic	PRISA
LAVANGUARDIA.COM	Liberal	Godó

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

 

 

As for media diffusion, it can be accessed through the reference on line 277, which is a news item based on Comscore data about users of the major Spanish media, including those in our sample, before the start of the pandemic, which is when our period of analysis begins.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author made the suggested changes from my first review, such as greater discussion of Framing Theory and the Spanish media system.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. After careful review, the authors have addressed the comments and concerns raised during the initial review process appropriately. The revisions have significantly improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript. I am happy to recommend the acceptance of your manuscript for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language in the manuscript is good, with clear and precise expression of ideas.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the suggestions and minor changes have been incorporated in this new version, thank you.