“I’ve Grown up with the Queen”: Responses to Media Coverage of Queen Elizabeth II’s Death

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting discussion of New Zealanders responses to the mediations of the Queen’s death. As far as I’m aware, this is original research and valuable to understanding transnational responses to the Queen’s death.

 

I thought the data had interesting potential. I think the article could be significantly improved with more focus on the discussion. I felt that it was interesting to learn that younger people had more cognitive responses (although the only quotation used in the cognitive section was from a 55 year old, which doesn’t seem to match) and older people emotional, but what is the impact of this on public responses to monarchy? Public understandings of monarchy? Monarchy’s place in New Zealand and other realms? Constitution and democracy? History and national identity? What does this tell us about New Zealand politics, about people’s identification with an overseas monarch? Or about the affective dimensions of monarchy and its emotional attachments? About the affective dimensions of the Queen herself? About the changing forms of media over the Queen’s reign and how this impacts our understandings of monarchy?  What does it mean that someone said they wanted news from the BBC because that’s from the centre of the action? Is there an affinity with the UK? Or a rejection? Does all of this tell us anything about anti-monarchism? Did that exist? Where and how?

 

In essence, I thought the data was interesting but the ‘so what?’ question hasn’t been explored.

Author Response

• I thought the data had interesting potential. I think the article could be significantly improved with more focus on the discussion.

I have significantly altered the article and added more in the discussion section.

• I felt that it was interesting to learn that younger people had more cognitive responses (although the only quotation used in the cognitive section was from a 55 year old, which doesn’t seem to match) and older people emotional, but what is the impact of this on public responses to monarchy? Public understandings of monarchy? Monarchy’s place in New Zealand and other realms? Constitution and democracy? History and national identity? What does this tell us about New Zealand politics, about people’s identification with an overseas monarch? Or about the affective dimensions of monarchy and its emotional attachments? About the affective dimensions of the Queen herself? About the changing forms of media over the Queen’s reign and how this impacts our understandings of monarchy?  What does it mean that someone said they wanted news from the BBC because that’s from the centre of the action? Is there an affinity with the UK? Or a rejection? Does all of this tell us anything about anti-monarchism? Did that exist? Where and how? In essence, I thought the data was interesting but the ‘so what?’ question hasn’t been explored

I have significantly altered the article and added more in the discussion section. I also changed the quotation I have used in this section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I think this research is super interesting and will contribute to how we understand the grieving process as it relates to celebrities and parasocial relationships. There are a few important things that need to be addressed involving clarity and references. Please see my comments and suggestions below.

The section “Celebrity Deaths” needs to be renamed, or it needs to include more information about celebrities other than Queen Elizabeth II.  

Based on what’s in your literature review, it’s unclear what led you to the RQ about age differences.

“In the week analyzed, participants used 63 news sources and consumed 648 units of news.” Can you explain what you mean by “units” of news?

I really appreciate that you break it down into types of media (e.g., traditional vs. new media). For clarity, I think it would be good to give a brief definition of what these are (or at least what makes them different).

It’s interesting that there seems to be generational differences, in that the older people felt stronger parasocial relationship strength (see Tukachinsky), and younger people felt weaker PSR strength, based on their comments from the focus group. There’s a great opportunity for you to contribute to the PSR literature here that I don’t know if you’re fully taking advantage of.

One participant brought up Trevor Noah – did they say anything else about his position? You also refer to a “counter-narrative”. In terms of literature aging, it would be good to clearly explain these pop culture references. After going back to your lit review, I see you have “counter-narrative” there, too, but it’s still unclear what that counter-narrative is.

It’s unclear how the media diaries and focus groups are connected (or not connected). Are they related? Did you ask questions about their diaries during the focus groups? Did they participate in the focus groups before or after completing the media diary? Are the participants who completed the diaries the same as the ones participating in the focus groups? How did you recruit the participants, and did they receive incentives?

The following sentences need citations:

“The younger cohort did not have the same emotional responses. In line with research on media consumption for this group, they used different news sources” (269)

“Celebrity deaths have significant impacts because of the relationships people have  with public figures, established through news and other media forms.” (282)

“Previous research has shown responses are influenced by the person’s  connection to the celebrity, their age, their stage in life, and news consumption habits.” (33) – this one needs several citations

Author Response

• The section “Celebrity Deaths” needs to be renamed, or it needs to include more information about celebrities other than Queen Elizabeth II.  

I have changed the heading of this section.

• Based on what’s in your literature review, it’s unclear what led you to the RQ about age differences.

I have changed the research questions.

• “In the week analyzed, participants used 63 news sources and consumed 648 units of news.” Can you explain what you mean by “units” of news?

I have added in extra information in this section.

• I really appreciate that you break it down into types of media (e.g., traditional vs. new media). For clarity, I think it would be good to give a brief definition of what these are (or at least what makes them different).

I have added in extra information to this section.

• It’s interesting that there seems to be generational differences, in that the older people felt stronger parasocial relationship strength (see Tukachinsky), and younger people felt weaker PSR strength, based on their comments from the focus group. There’s a great opportunity for you to contribute to the PSR literature here that I don’t know if you’re fully taking advantage of.

I have added extra information to this section. However, there is not enough data to fully analyse the types and extent of the parasocial relationships.

• One participant brought up Trevor Noah – did they say anything else about his position? You also refer to a “counter-narrative”. In terms of literature aging, it would be good to clearly explain these pop culture references. After going back to your lit review, I see you have “counter-narrative” there, too, but it’s still unclear what that counter-narrative is.

I have added extra information to this section.

• It’s unclear how the media diaries and focus groups are connected (or not connected). Are they related? Did you ask questions about their diaries during the focus groups? Did they participate in the focus groups before or after completing the media diary? Are the participants who completed the diaries the same as the ones participating in the focus groups? How did you recruit the participants, and did they receive incentives?

I have added extra information to this section.

• The following sentences need citations:
  • “The younger cohort did not have the same emotional responses. In line with research on media consumption for this group, they used different news sources” (269)
  • “Celebrity deaths have significant impacts because of the relationships people have  with public figures, established through news and other media forms.” (282)
  • “Previous research has shown responses are influenced by the person’s  connection to the celebrity, their age, their stage in life, and news consumption habits.” (33) – this one needs several citations.
• I have added citations to this section.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines media audience responses to the death of Queen Elizabeth II through the uses and gratifications theory and news values. The use of diaries and focus groups is valuable from a qualitative perspective. However, the paper can benefit from more deeper analytical engagement with the data. To this degree, linking participant quotes and theoretical concepts (e.g., parasocial relationships or generational identity) would enrich the discussion. As for the method, making the criteria for thematic categories and procedures for data coding and interpretation more explicit would foster transparency. Additionally, it would be advisable to provide more demographic data about participants (e.g., education level) and justify the sample size to generalise the findings. The paper has a lot of potential but needs to be refined.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

• This study examines media audience responses to the death of Queen Elizabeth II through the uses and gratifications theory and news values. The use of diaries and focus groups is valuable from a qualitative perspective.
• However, the paper can benefit from more deeper analytical engagement with the data.
• To this degree, linking participant quotes and theoretical concepts (e.g., parasocial relationships or generational identity) would enrich the discussion. As for the method, making the criteria for thematic categories and procedures for data coding and interpretation more explicit would foster transparency. Additionally, it would be advisable to provide more demographic data about participants (e.g., education level) and justify the sample size to generalise the findings. The paper has a lot of potential but needs to be refined.

I have added in further information to this article to address these points. There is not enough data to fully explore the potential aspects of the parasocial relationships.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to read this redraft. The argument is significantly enhanced, and I appreciated the emphasis on broader questions about parasocial relationships (the definitions for this at the start really helped) beyond just the monarchy, which makes sense for why some questions I proposed last time might not be suitable.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and glad to see you thought it has improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study would benefit from a clearer and more detailed explanation of the methodological approach. More specifically, it is recommended to describe in depth the procedures used for transcription, data coding and interpretation in order to enhance transparency and contribute to the replicability of the study. Please check the comments

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful and useful comments.  I have amended the article and made the change in red on the file.  I have also detailed the changes in a separate file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf