Review Reports - Platform-Specific Masculinities: The Evolution of Gender Representation in Indonesian Reality Shows Across Television and Digital Media

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Platform-Specific Masculinities: The Evolution of Gender Representation in Indonesian Reality Shows Across Television and Digital Media

Brief Summary

This is an interesting study. The authors did a good job of analysing a large number of digital materials and surveying a large number of people to examine the evolution of gender representations in Indonesian reality shows. I also thought the methodological triangulation makes the findings more robust. More so, the concept of platform-specific masculinities is new, and an interesting contribution of this study to gender and media research.

General Comments

However, I have some concerns with the literature, methods, results, and discussions. First, the authors merely mentioned the concept of intersectionality in the introduction, discussion, and conclusion. It's an important concept in discussing how systems interact to create unique experiences of privilege, perceptions, and representations—and even discrimination and vulnerability. The media is a reflection of the society where they exist: if there is any evolution in media representations, it’s most certainly because there has been an evolution in social systems in Indonesia. I would expect the authors to expand the intersectionality theory/concept in the introduction and the discussion of findings as they examine (and situate) how multiple (changing) social, religious, and political systems interact to inform the evolution of gender representation in Indonesian media, which they have identified.

End the Introduction section with the objectives that guided this study. Without it, the study seemed to lack direction and focus.

Second, some portions of the Materials and Method section are irrelevant and vague. The authors crammed this section with too many details. There is no sufficient application of Fairclough's CDA model. Is there any point of its mention? The model strictly orders CDA analysis into three dimensions and various levels in each dimension. This is not what you did. So, I suggest you remove it.

Also, evolution in the topic suggests that you document trends, changes and developments related to the way masculinity has been represented over time. The span was not defined for social media content analysis, unlike what the authors did for TV representations (2019 – 2024). Also, what major milestone in Indonesia inform your choice of 2019 to 2024 for TV? State that in the materials and methods section.

Moreover, the authors didn’t state the content categories and the markers/predictors of the various types of masculinity that they presented in the result section. It is in the Materials and Method section that they should operationalise to the readers how, for instance, they measured emotional masculinity, etc.

In the Result section, the figures were not clear and not well-referenced. The span for the TV content analysis was stated as 2019 to 2024, why is social media just one year? Is that enough to measure evolution?

In the Discussion, the authors didn't situate the discussion within relevant underpinning literature and theories. Relate your discussion to fit within the broader knowledge on the topic and the underpinning theories. That's the only way you give context and validity to your discussion.

As I said earlier, you talked about intersectionality: locate some of your findings about the evolution of gender to how they relate to the recent political developments, freedoms, gender developments, and discussions in Indonesia. I am aware that there are forces that shape and have shaped gender relations and representations in Indonesia in the past years, such as reformasi, decentralization... etc. I have also read about Indonesia’s progress towards gender equality in the past years... how do they impact on gender representations in the Indonesian media?

Specific Comments

Line 227 – 230: Rephrase

Line 231 – 235: Remove the Fairclough model. It was not applied in the study.

Line 241: Rigor and scientific validity in the analysis. You don’t say it; you show it.

Line 444: 2019 – 2023? Not consistent with what you presented earlier (2019 – 2024).

Line 257 – 259: This is what I was hoping you would do for social media content – scraping social media representations for at least 18 months.

Line 263: Once again, over what span did you look at social media content...?? I year? Is that sufficient time to examine an evolution? You looked at TV content between 2019 and 2024. Can you justify your choice of 1 year for digital media?

Line 267 – 269: To do justice to your claim on Line 241 about the rigour of this work and the validity of this analysis, justify your selection of the sample according to age. Why 35% for ages 18-24, 30% for ages 25-34, etc. Is it according to their proportion in the Indonesian population?

Line 290: Inferential analysis is not evident in the result section… please, remove it.

Lines 293 – 294: The meanings of the types of masculinities are vague. For instance, how did you define emotional, creative and traditional masculinities? Did you look at the words, phrases used, images, symbols, and the broad social or cultural content surrounding the media content? For instance, what makes up emotional masculinity? In your content analysis of the media platforms, what indicates emotional masculinity: all-capped words, exclamation points, sadness, anger, symbols such as emojis, tears, social media reactions, etc.?

Lines 303 – 307: This is the first time you have given your readers an idea of what the predictors of masculinity are, and also in Lines 314 to 316.

Line 337: Make sure the figures on the Total-Content column are accurate

Line 348: Family provider (21%) is too large to be ignored in the Result/Discussion. It is a gender-equitable characteristic that contracts with common representations of masculinity as “tough, wicked, arrogant” etc. in other literature.

Line 352: all the images are not clear, and I didn’t even understand the reference you tried to make to that figure in 350-351

Line 375: figure not clear

Line 384: 2019 to 2023 in Fig 4 is not consistent with the period mentioned earlier in the study.

Line 391: Relate your discussion to fit within the broader knowledge on the topic of this research and the underpinning theories.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear All Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript (journalmedia-3427613). We have carefully considered all your comments and suggestions and made comprehensive revisions to improve the manuscript. All modifications are marked in red in the revised manuscript for easy reference.

Key revisions include:

We have strengthened the theoretical framework by expanding the discussion of intersectionality throughout the manuscript, particularly in relating our findings to Indonesia's socio-political context.
The methodology section has been refined by:
- Removing reference to Fairclough's CDA model
- Adding clear justification for the 2019-2024 study period
- Including detailed operational definitions for masculinity categories
- Explaining sample demographic distribution rationale
The Results and Discussion sections have been enhanced by:
- Integrating more theoretical analysis
- Strengthening connections to existing literature
- Improving figure descriptions and data presentation

Regarding the survey methodology, we would like to clarify that our data collection was facilitated through collaboration with ASPIKOM (Asosiasi Perguruan Tinggi Ilmu Komunikasi - Association of Communication Science Higher Education Institutions). ASPIKOM's extensive network across Indonesia, with regional chapters in Java (7 locations), Sumatra (4 locations), and Sulawesi (3 locations), enabled us to reach a geographically diverse sample. Each regional ASPIKOM chapter helped distribute the survey through local networks, ensuring representation across different demographic groups while maintaining research protocols and ethical standards.

The survey was conducted online using a standardized questionnaire with the informed consent form on its first page. Participants could only proceed with the study after actively checking the consent box. Our institutional review board approved all data collection procedures, and ASPIKOM's involvement helped ensure compliance with local research practices while maintaining data quality and participant privacy.

These revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript, and I hope they address your concerns. We are grateful for your detailed feedback and will be available to provide additional clarification.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I think you get a good article. I make some recommendations:

This is a considerable sample; the author explains that various criteria have been used to select it and that it is therefore balanced. But to confirm that there is scientific rigour, the procedure by which this choice has been made must be explained: is it an open survey on the internet? have certain centres or institutions been visited personally to select the groups that participate in the survey? One thousand surveys is a large number and it is important to specify more specifically how and under what circumstances it was obtained.

Great your commitement with the gender diversity in the sample.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear All Reviewer

Key revisions include:

We have strengthened the theoretical framework by expanding the discussion of intersectionality throughout the manuscript, particularly in relating our findings to Indonesia's socio-political context.
The methodology section has been refined by:
- Removing reference to Fairclough's CDA model
- Adding clear justification for the 2019-2024 study period
- Including detailed operational definitions for masculinity categories
- Explaining sample demographic distribution rationale
The Results and Discussion sections have been enhanced by:
- Integrating more theoretical analysis
- Strengthening connections to existing literature
- Improving figure descriptions and data presentation

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a rigorous, original, insightful, and clearly-presented paper that attends to shifts in representations of masculinity in Indonesian reality television content. I was impressed by the thorough and logically organized review of literature, which helped position the paper within the fields of television and media studies. Attention to the global landscape is also helpful, and further lends significance to this study, as we are currently seeing a global rise of 'bro' culture fixed on hyper masculine representations of power. The findings of the study are important and have significant implications across media studies-- namely the notion of platform-specific gender expression, which the author(s) develop and which helps to show that emerging platforms can offer new spaces in which representations that challenge hegemonic models can be presented and consumed. Findings also seem to suggest that the representations on these emerging platforms have been a potential influence on traditional media, where we also see shifts.

Reality television has been written about widely and sometimes it may seem as if there is little left to discuss, but this paper shows otherwise. The research design is thoughtful and the author(s) breaks down each component in ways that are clear, rational, and help support the important findings. I recommend acceptance.

Author Response

Dear All Reviewer

Key revisions include:

We have strengthened the theoretical framework by expanding the discussion of intersectionality throughout the manuscript, particularly in relating our findings to Indonesia's socio-political context.
The methodology section has been refined by:
- Removing reference to Fairclough's CDA model
- Adding clear justification for the 2019-2024 study period
- Including detailed operational definitions for masculinity categories
- Explaining sample demographic distribution rationale
The Results and Discussion sections have been enhanced by:
- Integrating more theoretical analysis
- Strengthening connections to existing literature
- Improving figure descriptions and data presentation

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am impressed by the effort of the authors to fix the issues I noted in the manuscript, and within a very short time too. Almost all the suggested modifications to the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussions have been carefully made.

EXCEPT:

Look at Lines 433 - 434, the decline in traditional masculine representation continued to 25% in 2024 according to your Fig 4. It didn't just stop in 2023. Did it?

Also, look at Lines 473 - 474, you mentioned that there is a steady increase in progressive and mixed representations from 2019 to 2023, but as far as your Fig 4 goes, the steady increase continued to 33% in 2024.

Look at Lines 512 - 513, there is equally the same kind of inconsistencies as I listed above.

The authors have done a good job but if they do not correct the inconsistencies that I have noted above, it will negatively impact the validity and credibility of their findings.

Author Response

Dear Dr. Reviewer,

Thank you for your meticulous review and careful attention to temporal consistency in our manuscript. Your thorough examination has helped us identify several critical inconsistencies in our reporting of the temporal data, particularly regarding the trends through 2024.

We have made the following specific corrections to ensure complete consistency with our data, as presented in Figure 4:

We have corrected the reporting of the decline in traditional masculine representation to accurately reflect the complete trend through 2024 (from 85% in 2019 to 25% in 2024) rather than stopping at 2023.
We have revised all temporal references to include the entire study period through 2024, ensuring consistency in the whole manuscript.
We have verified and corrected all instances where the data progression was incorrectly truncated in 2023.

The specific textual corrections include the following:

Line 433-434: Changed "30% in 2023" to "25% in 2024"
Line 473-474: Updated the time frame from "2019 to 2023" to "2019 to 2024"
Line 512-513: Revised the temporal reference to include the complete study period through 2024

We appreciate your attention to detail, as these corrections are crucial for maintaining our findings' validity and credibility. Your careful review has helped ensure our manuscript presents accurate and consistent temporal data.

Please let us know if you notice any other areas that require similar attention to detail or consistency. We remain committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic rigor in our work.

Best regards,