Independent Press and the Fall of Robert Mugabe: Some Empirical Reflections

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This interesting study is relevant and oriented to publications of Journalism and Media. The paper investigates the positionality of the private or independent press in Zimbabwe relative to factionalism in the ruling ZANU-PF during the later years of the rule of Mr. Robert Mugabe. The study straddles history and politics in Zimbabwe, focusing on the internal political maneuvering in the ruling party for leadership and how the two private newspapers of the country presented the struggles. The construction of the study is commendable, based on a well-articulated research gap that indicates that the topic has received little research attention. The study draws data from journalist perspectives and content analysis of media reports, providing interesting insights into the media system in Zimbabwe. The study used a framing theory to guide the analysis, with the findings revealing that the press was manipulated and coopted to be part of the factions, thereby weakening the democratic impulse of the Zimbabwean press.

While the study is relevant and original, there are many challenges with the paper, which should be resolved to ready the paper for publication. The issues are listed below:

1. The abstract is good, but there is a slight disconnect between what the abstract captures as the goal of the paper and what is presented as the key findings. It is stated in the abstract that the paper aimed to investigate how ZANU-PF's factionalism permeated Zimbabwe's private press and influenced narratives of political succession within the party. However, findings presented in the abstract emphasised how journalists, and not their narratives, were captured and manipulated to push the agenda of the factions; how newsrooms were divided; and how newspapers were disabled from performing their democratic roles. Although mention is made of the narratives, the focus is on the journalists instead of the news reports. The abstract should align the goal and findings of the study.
2. The study adopts framing as a theoretical lens to guide the analysis. However, the cited works on framing are, apart from Chong and Druckman (2007), very dated: Tuchman, 1978; McCombs and Shaw, 1972). Recent perspectives on the subject should be included to present a view of the trends in framing analysis over time. The author(s) is/are encouraged to broaden the discussion and critique on framing and use fairly recent perspectives on the issue. The author(s) is/are encouraged to consult the following works on framing to enrich the paper:
   • Fairhurst, G. & Sarr, R. (1996). The art of framing. San Francisco: Tossey-Bass.
   • Fordjour, N, K. O. & Sikanku, E. (2022). Vice presidential candidate, language frame, and function across two continental divides: An analysis of the acceptance speeches. International journal of communication. 16, 19.
   • Reese, S. D. (2007). The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited. Journal of communication. 57(1), 55-75.
3. Various sections and aspects of the methodology (lines 56ff) need more information and/or clarification.
   
   • • The study indicates the use of a qualitative approach and a case study design. But very little is said about the case study. The reference to Yin (1984) (on a case study) is dated and must be improved to more recent publications The study should indicate and justify the type of case study adopted.
     • it is realised that the study collected and used two sets of qualitative data: interviews with 60 journalists and news reports for qualitative content analysis from two private newspapers. This suggests a mixing of methods within the qualitative paradigm. However, the author(s) does/do not indicate this. This is worth considering.
     • For the interview data, there is little clarification and justification for the 60 journalists included in the research and the number from each of the two media houses.
     • For the content analysis, it is not enough to say: "Purposively selected Daily News and NewsDay stories were subjected to qualitative content analysis ..." (lines 63-66). The methods should explain the criteria for the purposive selection and how the stories were selected. How many stories were selected overall and how many of them came from each newspaper? How specifically was the content analysis done? lines 67ff explain framing generally but provide almost no specifics in this study. For example, what frames were used, and what coding was done to reflect those frames, and how did these frames apply during the analysis? Etc.
     • The methodology does not also say the sequence in which the two datasets were analysed and presented.
4. Throughout the study, the author(s) write(s) without a contextualisation, as if every reader is or should be familiar with Zimbabwe. For example, lines 83-84 mention that Mugabe was Zezuru while Sithole was Manyinka without explaining what these represent within the Zimbabwean socio-cultural system. Thus, the synopsis of ZANU-PF should be presented well and contextualised to give a reader with no or little knowledge about the political and media situation of Zimbabwe to understand the issues. In fact, the historical aspect of the study has many gaps perhaps because of the assumption that the reader understands or is familiar with the setting of the study. The writing should be improved to clear this challenge and enhance an overall understanding of all text. 
5. While the analyses and findings are good, the presentation is not systematic on the issues. It is recommended that the author(s) use(s) the research questions as the systematic signposts to organised the analysis and findings. Then themes can be used. Thematic analysis is therefore recommended for which reason the author(s) is/are encouraged to do coding through which themes may be developed to guide the analysis systematically.
6. Overall, this important study does not indicate its theoretical contribution. This should be done in the discussion or conclusion section of the study.
7. One of the weakest aspects of the study is the language. The paper is full of language problems right from the abstract (see line 13) to the whole paper. These challenges (see, for example, lines 75-80) include missing words (see, for example, line 64), missing articles (a, an, the), Punctuation marks, pronoun agreement (see, for example, line 207), among others. The paper requires thorough proofreading and editing. It is advised that the author(s) should take advantage of and access MDPI's language facility to improve the paper.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper displays significant language challenges, some of which have been mentioned in the last paragraph of comments to the author(s). The author should be encouraged to access MDPI's language resources to ensure the quality of the publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. As a background on succession politics, the author might want to read the paper Mpofu, M., Tshuma, L. A., & Msimanga, M. J. (2022). Mediating a regime in crisis: corruption and succession in Zimbabwe’s state media. Media, Culture & Society, 44(6), 1215-1231. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221089011
2. The author might want to define or explain what oppositional journalism and patriotic journalism are. This should be done on page 1 line 43. This will help readers to understand these concepts at an earlier stage.
3. On methodology, the author should explain the sampling method which was used and justify
4. The section should also explain the data analysis method that was used.
5. Under the section, Synopsis of ZANU-PF Factionalism, the author might add information on Tsholotsho Declaration. The suggested text by Mpofu et al., 2022 can be of help.
6. What is the purpose of the image place don page 17? The image does not even have a caption, and is not highlighted in the text. I suggest the author removes it because it requires a different study on its own.
7. On the analysis section, given that the media system is polarised leading to different forms of journalisms, what does it mean when the private press became entangled in these factions? What nature or form of journalism is produced?
8.  

 

Author Response

Please attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Independent Press and the Fall of Robert Mugabe: Some Empirical Reflections". I have carefully reviewed your paper, and after thorough consideration, I regret to inform you that I am unable to recommend it for publication at this time. While your work presents some valuable insights and findings, particularly regarding the influence of ZANU-PF factions in manipulating independent journalists through material and monetary means, there are several areas where the paper could benefit from further development.

The following are the key areas that require further improvement:

• The paper requires a thorough review of the English language, including syntax, grammar, and overall clarity.
• There is no method section. The methodological section is one of the most important parts of a research article.
• The methodology section should address key questions, such as: What were the main axes of the interview guide? How many articles were analyzed in total? What criteria were used for article selection? What specific criteria were applied in the article analysis? What specific criteria were applied in the interview analysis? Additionally, the research questions should be reformulated for greater clarity. For instance, none of the current research questions references journalists' perspectives. Since the interviews focus on exploring journalists' viewpoints and experiences on the issue at hand, this distinction should be clearly stated.
• A sample of only four interviews is quite small, even for qualitative research. I recommend expanding your sample size if possible. If this is not feasible, you should provide a clear justification for the limited sample choice.
• There is currently no dedicated literature review or theoretical framework. I recommend transforming Unit 1.3 into a comprehensive literature review section that includes a detailed discussion of agenda-setting and frame analysis as the theoretical foundations of your study.

I encourage you to continue refining your research, and I believe that with further revision, your work has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper requires a thorough review of the English language, including syntax, grammar, and overall clarity.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important piece of work that speaks to the troubling issues in Zimbabwe's journalism industry vis a vis its entanglements in factional politics.

There are issues I need to raise to strengthen the paper. Firstly there is need for an ethical note on how the researchers deal with the mention of other people eg Kasukuwere especially where bribery allegations are made against him yet he is not given a right of reply. The author should mention that this is a public figure and therefore their actions are of public interest etc. 

There is no description and discussion of the economic and political imperatives that shape the two newspapers. Who owns them and why would they cover the issues under discussion the way that they did? The political economy literature will then be infused in the discussions and analyses. Presenting quotations from sources without engaging with literature is problematic at this level of scholarship. This is the main weakness of the paper. Once this is done the writer can then move the discussion as it is situated away from the conclusion.

Besides, there are minor mistakes such as incomplete sentences eg "Its in 1963...." ln78 pg2. There are many other minor mistakes that proof reading could help.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fairly good. minor edits needed

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is substantial improvement in the work from the abstract to references, so the author(s) should be commended for the good work. The abstract, introduction, and theoretical framework are well done. The methodology and findings are largely okay. The reference list has also been updated or improved. 

However, the author(s) should take note of the following few points:

1. The methodology contains a few issues that must be resolved:

•  The author(s) indicate/s on line 225 that purposive sampling was used to select interviewees. This is repeated on lines 257 ff and must be deleted.
• The author(s) mention(s) framing analysis (line 285ff) as a method in the methodology. However, framing as a method, indicates how frames are developed, mobilised and used with other frames in research. Thus, framing analysis, as a method, may not apply in this study considering the paper's orientation. A more appropriate method can be textual or content analysis within which framing can occur after coding. It seems content analysis is a better option since aspects of the analysis and findings show counts of news headlines and placement in newspapers. Thus, the appropriate supplementary method should be embedded in the methodology and connected well with the framing analysis.
•  The author(s) should do well to correctly write names of researchers cited in the paper. Fordjour and Sinkanku (2022) occur a few times in the paper (see lines 212 - 213, 221 and 223). The correct name for the second author is Sikanku. This should be checked and corrected. 
• The naming of interview participants as Participant A, Participant B, etc., has been haphazardly done. There should be a table in the methodology section to capture all the participants and their reference as A, B, C, D, etc. before they are mentioned in the findings.
• The relevance of the display of dates and headlines of news stories in the findings is not clear. the author(s) note(s) in the methods that the read and used the content of the newspapers to support the interview data. And indeed, the content in the body of news stories were used as data in the analysis to support findings. Thus, it is not clear why there are long lists of dates and headlines of the newspaper stories. If the author(s) used the headlines to frame the stories as positive or negative, this should be made clear in the methodology section and applied in the analysis.
• The methods section is too long and can be shortened.

2. The language of the paper, although radically improved, still require more thorough proofreading and editing throughout the paper.  A few cases are as follows:

• Some portions of the paper display chunky (short) and uncoordinated sentences (see, for example, lines 92ff). Such sentences should be properly revised throughout the paper.
• In some cases in the findings, the author(s) refer to a participant and use a plural pronoun, 'They' or 'them' for it (see, for example, line 845). This should be corrected.
• There are a few spelling mistakes in the paper, such as ZANUPF (see line 353) instead of ZANU-PF. The proofreading should resolve all such issues.

3. Many cited items in the body of the paper are not captured in the reference list. For example, Wilvox, 2011; Mathisen, 2021; Colon, 2022 (see line 836) are not in the reference list. All such cases should be resolved.

4. The reference list is also not arranged in alphabetical order as required. This and other formatting mistakes should be addressed.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language requires more thorough proofreading and editing in terms of spelling, tenses, sentence structure, pronoun agreement, and so on. 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Rhe article has improved and needs refinement still. for instance state controlled media are not zanu-pf owned. Also ZanuPf faction groups and the concept of factionalism in Zimbabwe politics and also in journalism needs to come out more clearly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs editing and refinement

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf