Two Minutes to Midnight: The 2024 Iranian Missile Attack on Israel as a Live Media Event
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The main objectives of the study should be presented in an introductory section, not in the background section. The introduction is missing as the study starts abruptly with a background section.
2. There is a paragraph at the end of the Background section which is repeted almost identically at the beginning of the Literature Review section (regarding research that shows that prolonged exposure to news during crisis can lead to anxiety, fear and so on).
3. The theoretical framework needs more clarity. The study heavily relies on Dayan and Katz media events theory from 1992, but should explain clearly the difference between ceremonial events and live coverage of traumatic events (marathons of terror, natural disasters, and war), highlighting the factors that differentiate them, in particular their integrative versus disruptive character.
4. Although in the theoretical framework author(s) refer only to news consumption during war and terrorism crises, in the research hypothesis section author(s) refer to media consumption during the health crisis and how media consumption increased during the pandemic crisis. If there are few studies analyzing media consumption during war and terrorism crisis and this study comes to fill this gap, it should be clearly stated. The study needs to be better linked to existing literature, so the author(s) is (are) urged to examine the literature section again.
5. Also in the research hypothesis section are mentioned several sources that cannot be found in the References section (York, 2013; Weber & Koehler, 2017; Tewksbury et al. 2008; Valentino et al,. 2008; van Antwerpen at al. 2021; Yoon et al. 2021 etc.).
6. In the Methods and Materials section is stated that the survey aimed to examine three primary aspects, the third one being " the participants' trust in official government communication", but the Results section is silent on this issue. The organization of the Results section should be revised to assure a clear link between research findings, data collected and research objectives.
7. The interpretation of the results is linked to the theory, but nowhere is mention the implication of the (lack of) trust in official government communication and how/if this affects the results. If these issues are beyond the scope of this study, they should not be mentioned as issues aimed to be examined through the survey.
Author Response
First, we would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which helped us improve the manuscript significantly. We have addressed all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. All major changes in the text have been highlighted in yellow for ease of review.
Comment 1. The main objectives of the study should be presented in an introductory section, not in the background section. The introduction is missing as the study starts abruptly with a background section.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The introduction has now been added, presenting the main objectives of the study as recommended. The background section has been adjusted accordingly. Please see page 1.
Comment 2. There is a paragraph at the end of the Background section which is repeated almost identically at the beginning of the Literature Review section (regarding research that shows that prolonged exposure to news during crisis can lead to anxiety, fear, and so on).
Response: We thank the reviewers for highlighting this issue. The repeated paragraph has been removed from the Literature Review section to avoid redundancy. Please see page 2.
Comment 3. The theoretical framework needs more clarity. The study heavily relies on Dayan and Katz's media events theory from 1992 but should explain clearly the difference between ceremonial events and live coverage of traumatic events (marathons of terror, natural disasters, and war), highlighting the factors that differentiate them, in particular their integrative versus disruptive character.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. The theoretical framework has been revised to clearly distinguish between the difference between ceremonial events and live coverage of traumatic events. Please see pages 2-4 for our modifications of the literature review.
Comment 4. Although in the theoretical framework the author(s) refer only to news consumption during war and terrorism crises, in the research hypothesis section the author(s) refer to media consumption during the health crisis and how media consumption increased during the pandemic crisis. If there are few studies analyzing media consumption during war and terrorism crises and this study comes to fill this gap, it should be clearly stated. The study needs to be better linked to existing literature, so the author(s) is (are) urged to examine the literature section again.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The study now explicitly highlights the gap in the literature regarding media consumption during war and terrorism crises, linking it to existing studies and clarifying the rationale for the research. Overall, we have rewritten several hypotheses accordingly (pages 4-5).
Comment 5. Also in the research hypothesis section are mentioned several sources that cannot be found in the References section (York, 2013; Weber & Koehler, 2017; Tewksbury et al. 2008; Valentino et al., 2008; van Antwerpen et al. 2021; Yoon et al. 2021, etc.).
Response: We thank the reviewers for identifying this oversight. All missing references have been added to the References section and were highlighted accordingly.
Comment 6. In the Methods and Materials section, it is stated that the survey aimed to examine three primary aspects, the third one being "the participants' trust in official government communication," but the Results section is silent on this issue. The organization of the Results section should be revised to assure a clear link between research findings, data collected, and research objectives.
Response: Thank you for this important observation. We realized that the topic of trust in official government communication deviates from the original focus of our study. As a result, we have removed this aspect from the Methods and Materials section to maintain alignment with the study's objectives. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers for identifying this, as it provided an opportunity to refine the manuscript.
Comment 7. The interpretation of the results is linked to the theory, but nowhere is mentioned the implication of the (lack of) trust in official government communication and how/if this affects the results. If these issues are beyond the scope of this study, they should not be mentioned as issues aimed to be examined through the survey.
Response: Thank you for this comment. As noted in the response to Comment 6, we have removed the discussion of trust in official government communication to maintain the study's focus and alignment with its objectives.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article submitted is clear, generally coherent in argument and engages with an important real world event. It is logically presented, theoretically informed and empirically executed though an appropriate methodology. The subject matter, the impact of news coverage on individual and collective behaviours and responses to an unprecedented bombardment on Israel - is important and potentially holds insights for wider consideration in relation to similar conflict events. In minor criticism only a few points can also be made.
1) There is scope for improved contextualisation of the Iranian 2024 missile bombardment in respect of Israel's long-standing and ongoing military actions in Gaza and in the surrounding region, including Iran. This political context is required to better understand the events under consideration but also, conceivably, in respect of Israeli public responses. There is a deep-seated and ongoing political context and narrative to these events, which is missing from the analysis, and which tends in consequence to suggest apolitical and essentialised humanistic responses to the bombardment, conceived only in terms of fear, security and anxiety.
2) The key theoretical framework for the article is 'media events.' This is indeed productive, but the literature review is not as fulsome as it could be given the numbers of studies and debates that have ensued post Dayan and Katz's earlier, albeit seminal, study. Some of these studies have also sought to catch-up with the new multi-media, digital world of news media and media more generally.
3) This reviewer wondered if sometimes the pursuit of news media impact and effects in respect of feelings of anxiety, fear and (in)security) and so on was conflating such understandable responses to these real-world events with news coverage of these events. Is it conceivable that some of the reaction and responses observed are both understandable and reasonable given the nature of the threats posed by the missile strikes and not an artefact of excessive and/or sustained news coverage?
4) Does the reader need to know more about the nature of the media representation of these events as well as general patterns of audience media consumption ? How does media and/or news coverage change in style, form, mode of address, subjunctive appeals and so on when manufacturing 'media events' and not simply representing them?
The article as presented and executed is rooted within a rigorous scientific paradigm and empirical methodological approach and this has generated findings of interest. I wondered however whether this approach has proved sufficient in this case to get beneath the skin of mapped behavioural responses and claims to the more complex cultural and political dynamics of sense making and interpretation that is part and parcel of 'media events'.
These minor comments, are offered in constructive criticism only. Within its own scientistic terms and framework the piece as presented is both coherent and plausible. The comments offered may nonetheless be worth considering before final publication.
Author Response
First, we would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which helped us improve the manuscript significantly. We have addressed all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. All major changes in the text have been highlighted in yellow for ease of review.
Comment 1. There is scope for improved contextualisation of the Iranian 2024 missile bombardment in respect of Israel's long-standing and ongoing military actions in Gaza and in the surrounding region, including Iran. This political context is required to better understand the events under consideration but also, conceivably, in respect of Israeli public responses. There is a deep-seated and ongoing political context and narrative to these events, which is missing from the analysis, and which tends in consequence to suggest apolitical and essentialised humanistic responses to the bombardment, conceived only in terms of fear, security and anxiety.
Response: Thank you for this important observation. We have added further contextualisation of the situation and more background regarding the tensions around the area. The relevant changes have been highlighted in yellow on pages 1-2.
Comment 2. The key theoretical framework for the article is 'media events.' This is indeed productive, but the literature review is not as fulsome as it could be given the numbers of studies and debates that have ensued post Dayan and Katz's earlier, albeit seminal, study. Some of these studies have also sought to catch-up with the new multi-media, digital world of news media and media more generally.
Response: We thank the reviewers for this suggestion. The literature review has been expanded to include additional studies and debates that have emerged since Dayan and Katz's seminal work, particularly those that address the evolving nature of media events in the context of terror and war-related news coverages. These updates are highlighted on pages 2-4.
Comment 3. This reviewer wondered if sometimes the pursuit of news media impact and effects in respect of feelings of anxiety, fear and (in)security) and so on was conflating such understandable responses to these real-world events with news coverage of these events. Is it conceivable that some of the reaction and responses observed are both understandable and reasonable given the nature of the threats posed by the missile strikes and not an artefact of excessive and/or sustained news coverage?
Response: We appreciate this insightful comment. To address this, we have clarified the distinction between the natural psychological responses to the missile strikes and the potential amplification effects of news media coverage both in the literature review (pages 2-4) and through the discussion (pages 10-11).
Comment 4. Does the reader need to know more about the nature of the media representation of these events as well as general patterns of audience media consumption? How does media and/or news coverage change in style, form, mode of address, subjunctive appeals and so on when manufacturing 'media events' and not simply representing them?
Response: Thank you for raising this important point. We have included a discussion on the nature of media representation during the missile bombardment, focusing on changes in style, form, and subjunctive appeals in manufacturing media events (page 11).
Comment 5. The article as presented and executed is rooted within a rigorous scientific paradigm and empirical methodological approach and this has generated findings of interest. I wondered however whether this approach has proved sufficient in this case to get beneath the skin of mapped behavioural responses and claims to the more complex cultural and political dynamics of sense making and interpretation that is part and parcel of 'media events'.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful observation. While the current study focuses on behavioural responses within a defined empirical framework, we acknowledge the value of exploring the more complex cultural and political dynamics of sense-making. We have noted this limitation in the discussion section and suggested it as an avenue for future research.
Comment 6: These minor comments are offered in constructive criticism only. Within its own scientific terms and framework, the piece as presented is both coherent and plausible. The comments offered may nonetheless be worth considering before final publication.
Response: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s kind words and constructive feedback! These thoughtful comments provided have been invaluable in helping us refine and enhance the manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and made revisions to address them. We thank the reviewer for recognizing the strengths of our work and for their insightful suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for allowing me to review this paper again. I could find that the author(s) showed many improvements from the previous version.
I would suggest just a one more thing: author(s) should carefully check that all authors mentioned in the text can be found in the References section and also eliminate references to articles that were not used in the manuscript.
On a rather superficial check of these issues, I could not find Romanova & Hutchens (2023) or Shaw et al. (2021) in the References section.
Also, one article that appears in the References seems not to have been used/cited in the manuscript (Mayer, Y.; Shiffman, N.; Bergmann, E.; Natoor, M.; Khazen, S.; Lurie, I.; Enav, Y. (2024). Mental health outcomes of Arab and Jewish populations in Israel a month after the mass trauma events of October 7, 2023: A cross-sectional survey of a representative sample. Psychiatry Research, 339, 116042).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your kind and constructive feedback. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and the References section. Following your suggestion, we ensured that all references cited in the text are included in the References section and removed any items not cited in the manuscript.
We appreciate your thorough review and believe these updates improve the manuscript's clarity and accuracy.
