Content Osmosis in Television Programmes: The Inclusion of News in the Spanish Magazines Espejo Público and Mañaneros

REVIEWER 1

AUTHOR

The use of the biological concept of "osmosis" as a scientific metaphor to explain the transfer of content between media forms is an innovative intellectual addition, even if it requires linguistic and methodological refinement (as will be mentioned in the notes)……..Although the use of the concept of "osmosis" is innovative, the connection between the biological phenomenon and the media remains superficial. The concept needs to be further refined with terminological precision, with reference to a scholarly source that defines this metaphor within media studies or discourse analysis, not just biology.

We agree with this comment. We have introduced clarifying elements on the symbolic concept of osmosis for a clearer insertion in the field of media studies. We have also included references and modified the wording of the paragraph in order to achieve greater clarity on the symbolic intention of the term to explain the transfer of content from one format to another. We have marked these corrections in yellow so that you can see the changes. The amended text is attached.

the weak logical organization of some paragraphs, and the sudden transition from discussing the "loss of media leadership" to "the transfer of content to magazines" without sufficient logical introduction.

We agree with this comment. We have modified some paragraphs to improve the logical explanation of the link between the loss of supremacy of traditional media (we have added the word traditional to specify) and the increase of news content in magazines as one of the ways to counteract this decline and improve the overall ratings of the networks. We have marked these corrections in yellow so that you can see the changes. The amended text is attached

Also, many ideas are combined into long paragraphs, making it difficult to follow the main line

We agree with this comment. We have tried to improve the wording in some paragraphs to make it easier to understand.

Some sentences are also long and complex, affecting clarity and readability.

Revised

The introduction lacks any reference to a general reading of the nature of the media landscape in Spain, in terms of distribution and ownership of media outlets, even Crimean media.

There are no real, concrete examples linking the research idea, its objectives, and the general context to real models or examples from the Spanish media landscape.

Yes, we agree. This revised introduction now addresses that point comprehensively:

Media Structure & Ownership: It outlines Spain’s key media players (public, private, conglomerates, regional), concentration issues, and funding sources—with concrete market-share data and regulatory risk assessments.

Anchored in Hallin & Mancini’s polarised pluralism model, backed by Institutional and EU sources (Centre for Media Pluralism and Freedom, GDPR, Reuters Institute, etc.).

This study would be better off using an economic model for content production.

We think the suggestion is very wise and we take note of it in order to include this perspective in future research we are planning, especially in Spain, where there is a great debate on the financing of public television.

There is no comprehensive reading of the study community, in terms of the number of television channels in Spain and the nature of the programs they offer.

We agree. I have added a table in which I specify details of how the media universe in Spain is shaped, especially television. We have marked these corrections in yellow so that you can see the changes. The amended text is attached

There is no explanation for why these two channels or programs were chosen for analysis.

We  agree with this comment. We have included the information that was already included in the abstract but was not present in point 3 Materials and methods.

These two programmes have been chosen to constitute the sample because they are the highest rated programmes in the ratings of private and public channels respectively.

We have marked these corrections in yellow so that you can see the changes. The amended text is attached

Content analysis and its procedures are not clear, and there is no reference to the categories of analysis and their theoretical and procedural definitions.

We agree. The section on methodology has been modified to clarify the references to content analysis and the procedures for defining categories. We have marked these corrections in yellow so that you can see the changes. The amended text is attached

There are also no measures of validity and reliability.

Thank you for your observation. While it is true that traditional measures of intercoder reliability (e.g., Cohen’s Kappa) were not applied in this study, this was due to the extensive volume of audiovisual material analyzed (484 news items across approximately 39 hours of programming), which made the inclusion of multiple coders unfeasible.

However, the research maintains methodological rigour through a carefully designed coding instrument grounded in established theoretical frameworks (Früh & Wirth, 1997; Krippendorff, 2004; Mateos, 2013; Montero & Ferré, 2017). Prior to the main analysis, a pilot test was conducted to refine the operational definitions of variables and ensure consistent application of the coding scheme.

Although a second coder was not employed, all coding decisions were based on explicit inclusion/exclusion rules to minimize subjectivity. The protocol is transparent and replicable, and in this context, reliability is addressed through internal consistency and clear documentation. This approach aligns with accepted practices in single-coder content analysis, particularly in exploratory studies with high-volume qualitative data. This explanation is included in the article. We have marked these corrections in yellow so that you can see the changes. The amended text is attached

In the results, it is unclear how the researcher arrived at framing the news without using media framing theory.

Thank you for this important observation. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that the references to the "perspective and orientation of the thematic agenda" are conceptually aligned with framing theory, particularly following the definition proposed by Entman (1993), who explains that framing involves selecting certain aspects of a perceived reality and making them more salient to promote a particular interpretation.

Although the study does not explicitly adopt a full theoretical framework of media framing, the analysis of thematic orientation—such as emphasis on curiosity/surprise, morality/responsibility, or immediacy—reflects dimensions of issue framing and emphasis framing identified in existing literature. These categories were operationalised through clearly defined variables grounded in previous research and adapted to the specific objectives of this study.

We have now included a brief theoretical reference to media framing theory in the methodology and results sections to provide clearer conceptual grounding for the interpretative dimensions of the news content analysis. We have marked these corrections in yellow so that you can see the changes. The amended text is attached

This research does not add any qualitative value to the field of media studies.

We appreciate this observation and would like to clarify that, although the research is primarily based on quantitative content analysis, it incorporates a qualitative dimension that contributes to the understanding of how television magazine programmes structure and frame their content. Specifically, the study analyses not only the frequency and types of news coverage but also the expressive nuances, the use of spectacularisation elements, and the nature of live connections. These qualitative aspects reveal the narrative strategies and editorial intentions behind content production, offering insights into how live television constructs meaning, appeals to emotions, and fosters audience engagement.

Furthermore, the typology of live connection forms developed and applied in this study (e.g., illustrative, detached-live, perpetuous) represents a conceptual contribution that can be applied and tested in future analyses of audiovisual content. This typology reflects the hybridisation of formats and the evolving nature of live news broadcasting, particularly in infotainment contexts—an area of increasing relevance in media studies.

We have now revised the manuscript to better highlight this qualitative contribution in both the methodology and discussion sections. We have marked these corrections in yellow so that you can see the changes. The amended text is attached

REVIEWER 2

AUTHOR

Introduction: it would be necessary to talk about the negative aspects of news consumption and its production in relation to journalistic quality. In addition, a greater support of quotations would be necessary when explaining the changes in news programs and the development of the hybridization of genres (lines 43-75).

Thank you very much for your thorough reading of the manuscript and for your valuable comments regarding the Introduction section. I appreciate your feedback, which has helped me significantly improve the clarity, structure, and academic tone of the text.

In response to your observations, I have carefully revised the entire Introduction.

The original section has been reorganized to ensure logical progression and clearer transitions between ideas. The context of the study (television news in Spain’s polarized pluralist media system) is now introduced earlier and more cohesively.

The metaphor of osmosis as applied to the migration of news content into magazine formats has been better integrated and explained. The new version presents the concept in a more concise, academically grounded manner, avoiding repetition and emphasizing the asymmetrical nature of the transfer.

I have increased conceptual coherence: References to hybridisation, genre boundaries, and the evolving role of television journalism have been made more explicit, drawing more directly on relevant literature (Jenkins, Hepp & Couldry, Gutsche & Hess).

The table on the Spanish media system has been retained but integrated more fluently into the narrative.

I trust that these changes address your concerns and contribute to a more robust and readable introduction. Changes in the text have been marked in blue so that you can see them more clearly. The text with these changes is attached.

The genres listed in Saló's taxonomy should be explained

I appreciate your observation, as it helped improve the clarity and usefulness of this section for readers who may not be familiar with this classification.

In response, I have revised the paragraph to include brief definitions of each of the five entertainment genres identified by Saló (2021): reality shows, talk shows, game shows, humour programmes, and magazine formats. These short explanations provide essential context

.

Finally, it would be necessary to work with more actual references in relation to hybridization and info-entertainment in television.

Thank you very much for your insightful and constructive comment regarding the need to incorporate more recent references on hybridisation and info-entertainment in television.

In response, I have revised the section titled "Hybridisation of content and genres in television formats" to integrate more updated academic literature that reflects the evolution of this phenomenon in the current digital and convergent media landscape. Specifically, I have included references such as Baym (2020), Chadwick (2017), Esser (2023), Lotz (2018), Mikos (2022), and Van Zoonen (2022), among others. These sources provide a more contemporary and global perspective on the hybrid media system, the transformation of news formats, and the increasing convergence between information and entertainment.

Changes in the text have been marked in blue so that you can see them more clearly. The text with these changes is attached

Materials & Methods: although a sampling method has been established that allows representative samples to be obtained, it would be necessary to determine how these five days have been chosen (as they must be randomly selected) and from what specific time period they would be representative

Thank you very much for your comment regarding the sampling strategy and the need to clarify the random selection process and the representativeness of the selected days.

In response, I have revised the Materials & Methods section to offer a more detailed explanation. The five days were selected using the constructed week method, which has been justified with references (Hester et al., 2007; Lacy et al., 1995) and applied according to recommendations for content analysis of news programming (Connolly-Ahern et al., 2009). I have now explicitly stated that the dates were randomly drawn, ensuring that one weekday (Monday to Friday) was represented in a distributed six-week time window (February–March 2025), and that the sample covers a standard programming period unaffected by special events.

Changes in the text have been marked in blue so that you can see them more clearly. The text with these changes is attached

It is also questionable whether the results can be generalized to public vs. private television programs (RQ 5), using a sample of two programs

Thank you for your thoughtful observation regarding the generalizability of the results concerning public versus private television programmes in Research Question 5.

We fully acknowledge the limitations that come with analysing a sample composed of only two programmes—one public and one private. Our intention is not to generalize the findings to the entire public and private television landscape, but rather to offer a comparative exploration of two benchmark programmes that are representative within their respective sectors due to their high audience share and influence in the Spanish morning television ecosystem.

This comparison aims to identify indicative tendencies, not statistical generalizations, and we have now clarified this point in the revised version of the manuscript. Additionally, we have emphasized that this study provides an initial basis for further research with broader samples that could allow for more generalizable conclusions.

We appreciate your suggestion, which has led us to strengthen the discussion of the study’s scope and limitations.

Another undeveloped aspect, which limits the quality of the research, is the development of an analysis focused on inter-coder agreement. This should be done even if there is only one coder

Thank you for highlighting the importance of addressing inter-coder reliability in the content analysis.

We acknowledge that including a formal inter-coder agreement process is an important component of methodological rigour. In this study, due to the extensive volume and duration of the audiovisual material, the coding was carried out by a single trained researcher. While this approach ensured consistency throughout the process, we recognize its limitations in terms of replicability and reliability validation.

In light of your comment, we have now included a detailed description of the coding protocol, as well as the training and piloting steps taken to ensure consistency and reliability. We have also added a statement in the limitations section to explicitly acknowledge the absence of inter-coder testing and to suggest that future studies should incorporate multiple coders and inter-coder reliability statistics (e.g., Cohen’s Kappa or Krippendorff’s Alpha) to enhance the robustness of the analysis.

We appreciate your observation, which has allowed us to more clearly define the scope and methodological boundaries of our study.

. As for the operationalization/categorization of variables, taxonomies such as those of Früh & Wirth; Montero & Ferré; or Mateos are adapted. Why are they not mentioned in the introduction?

You are absolutely right:these theoretical frameworks should be acknowledged earlier in the paper.

In response, we have revised the introduction to briefly reference these foundational models as part of the theoretical grounding of the study. This change aims to ensure conceptual coherence and to guide the reader more clearly through the analytical approach adopted in the methods and results sections.

Changes in the text have been marked in blue so that you can see them more clearly. The text with these changes is attached

The visual presentation of the variables and categories could also be improved

Ok. We will do with edition services

Taking into account that, as they are shown, in some of the variables, the categories are not exclusive, it should be pointed out whether several categories can be indicated within the same variable. If not, these variables should be redefined as Main topic, Main source, Main frame...

Thank you for your valuable observation regarding the presentation of variables. In response, we have clarified the theoretical basis and systematic grouping of the twelve variables used in our content analysis. A new paragraph has been added in the methodology section to explain the analytical dimensions they belong to (thematic, discursive, and formal) and how they were derived from established theoretical models (Früh & Wirth, 1997; Montero & Ferré, 2017; Mateos, 2013). We have also emphasized the operationalization process and the function of these variables in our exploratory framework. For additional clarity, Table 2 has been referenced as the comprehensive analysis sheet. Changes in the text have been marked in blue so that you can see them more clearly. The text with these changes is attached

Finally, it is not understood that only the categories of the last variable are explained and the rest are not.

We have revised the manuscript to clarify the logic behind the categorization of all variables, not just the last one. In response, we have added a new paragraph in the methodology section explaining how each variable group was conceptualized and operationalized, with specific references to their theoretical origins. These explanations now accompany the existing analysis sheet (Table 2), ensuring greater clarity and interpretability of the coding categories. We trust this resolves the issue and improves the coherence of the variable structure. Changes in the text have been marked in blue so that you can see them more clearly. The text with these changes is attached

Results and Discussion: this section lacks an introductory paragraph presenting the different points or headings of the analysis.

We agree with your assessment. We have therefore introduced an introductory paragraph in the Results and Discussion section. The changes in the text have been marked in blue so that you can see them more clearly. The text with these changes is attached

An important aspect is that throughout the descriptive analysis there is no reference whatsoever to statistical measures that would allow us to know whether or not this distribution of frequencies of the categories in each variable is representative of the population as a whole

Thank you for your observation. The objective of our study is primarily descriptive and exploratory in nature. Given that the sample is not probabilistic and the goal is not to generalize findings to the entire population of television magazines, but rather to conduct a comparative case study of two specific programmes (Espejo Público and Mañaneros) during a defined period, no inferential statistical tests were applied. We acknowledge the importance of such measures in studies aiming for generalization and will clarify this point in the methodology section. The changes in the text have been marked in blue so that you can see them more clearly. The text with these changes is attached.

It would also be necessary to apply statistical formulas to determine whether the differences between one program and the other are statistically significant. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, these differences between programs should not be attributed to other private television programs, so generalizations should be avoided.

We also acknowledge your important observation concerning the limitations of generalization. As this is a comparative case study focusing specifically on Espejo Público and Mañaneros, we will emphasize in the revised manuscript that our conclusions apply solely to these two programmes and do not aim to represent the broader landscape of public and private television in general. We will include a clarification in the methodology and conclusions sections to avoid overgeneralization.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful and constructive feedback, which is helping us to improve the quality and clarity of our work.

Conclusions: following the line of the previous comments, there is no specific statistical analysis that would allow generalizing the results to the whole population and to other populations, so there is no support for the statements made in relation to the results of each program and the comparison between the two.

Thank you for your insightful observation regarding the lack of statistical analysis to support generalisation. We acknowledge that the original version of the manuscript did not clearly state the methodological limitations concerning the representativeness of the findings or the statistical significance of the differences observed between the two programmes.

In response, we have substantially revised the conclusion section to explicitly address these limitations. We now clarify that the study is based on a descriptive and qualitative content analysis of two specific programmes within a defined time period. No inferential statistical methods were used; therefore, the results cannot be generalised to the broader population of morning television programmes in Spain, nor can they be extended to all public or private broadcasters.

We also now highlight that our observations pertain solely to the selected cases (Espejo Público and Mañaneros), and we explicitly caution against overgeneralisation. Furthermore, we have included a suggestion for future research to incorporate statistical tools and larger samples in order to validate and extend the findings.

References: it should be noted that APA standards are not correctly applied in many of the final bibliographic references.

APA references have been reviewed

REVIEWER 

AUTHOR

A table must be added to the sample that better explains the study sample, for example, the date of the programs’ broadcast and the duration of the program and clarify the history of these magazines in terms of their establishment.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response to your comment, we have added a table (Table 1) that provides a detailed overview of the programs included in our study sample. The table includes the broadcast dates analyzed, the approximate duration of each episode, the launch year of each program, and a brief historical and contextual description. This addition aims to clarify the structure and background of the media content analyzed and strengthen the transparency of our sampling process.

A reference must be provided that these two magazines are the most popular among the public (The selection criteria have been since they are the two most popular programs in this format for the morning slot on the private and public channels in Spain, respectively. (Where is the reference?)

We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We have now added updated audience data to justify the selection of Espejo Público (Antena 3) and Mañaneros 360 (TVE 1) as the most representative morning magazine programmes on Spanish private and public television, respectively. Specifically, we cite data from March 2025, the exact period during which the research sample was collected. According to Barlovento Comunicación and media sources, Antena 3 led the national television rankings with a 12.5 % share and dominated the morning time slot (11.4 %), where Espejo Público stood out as the leader among private channels. Similarly, Mañaneros 360 averaged 8.8 % to 9.8 % daily share and over 345,000 viewers, positioning it as the leading morning programme on public television. These references are now included in the revised manuscript, both in-text and in the bibliography, following APA citation style. The changes made in response to the review have been highlighted in orange within the manuscript to facilitate their identification.

Although the authors addressed the importance of language, its limits, and the differences between the language of the news program and that used by magazines (see page 2, lines 82, 83), they did not sufficiently address the language variable. It was necessary to address the verbal and nonverbal language used by magazines in covering the news (note the variables in the analysis form V6 and V7 ).

 We agree that a more explicit emphasis on the verbal and nonverbal dimensions of language—especially those related to expressive nuances—was needed. In response, we have revised and expanded the sections discussing variables V6 and V7, which are grounded in rhetorical and discursive analysis frameworks. We now clarify in more detail how intonation, vocal emphasis, and evaluative tone were analyzed and quantified across both programmes, based on systematic viewing and coding of presenter and journalist interventions.

In particular, new text has been added to highlight the nonverbal communicative strategies used by the presenters (such as vocal inflections to convey emotional subtext), as well as the explicit verbal assessments—positive or negative—delivered during programme introductions. Figures 4 and 5 have also been reinforced in the text to reflect the differential use of expressive elements between Mañaneros and Espejo Público, demonstrating clear editorial and stylistic contrasts in how both programmes construct tone and audience engagement.

These revisions help to strengthen the theoretical and empirical relevance of language as a key dimension of hybrid genre construction, and we appreciate the reviewer’s guidance in helping us improve this aspect.

it is necessary to address the findings and clarify the titles of the research questions when presenting and organising the results.

In response, we have restructured the Results section to clearly align with the four research questions (RQ1–RQ4), which are now explicitly referenced as subheadings. This organization ensures that each set of findings is directly tied to the corresponding research aim, enhancing the overall clarity and coherence of the manuscript.

We trust that this revision improves the readability of the results and appropriately addresses the reviewer’s concerns.

Furthermore, the authors only present graphs without even listing the percentages for these categories on the graph or adding tables for these frequencies and percentages.

Following your suggestion, we have integrated the exact percentages for each result directly into the text in section 4. This revision has been made consistently across subsections 4.1 to 4.8, using the corresponding numerical data already included in the study. We believe this addition enhances the clarity and precision of the results, making the analysis more accessible to readers. The changes made in response to the review have been highlighted in orange within the manuscript to facilitate their identification.

It is necessary to provide recommendations and applications for study, more than just focusing on media education programs, recommendations for news programs, recommendations for morning magazines, and others.

We have now expanded the conclusion section to include a set of concrete recommendations and applications based on the results of our study. These suggestions go beyond media education programmes and address the editorial strategies of morning magazines, the role of news bulletins, and the responsibility of public and private broadcasters.

The recommendations are carefully formulated, taking into account the descriptive nature of the research, and aim to offer useful insights for both content producers and policy-makers.

REVIEWER 4

AUTHOR

The initial organisation of the article should be reviewed. The introduction should be brief and give an overview of the article as a whole. Only then should there be specific sections. An introduction divided into five parts doesn’t seem to make sense. In addition, at the beginning of Section 2 of the article there is a reference to the previous section as a ‘theoretical review’, when that designation is not used in any of the previous subheadings.

Thank you for this valuable observation. I agree that the previous structure of the introduction was too segmented and could cause confusion for the reader. I have therefore restructured the introduction into a single, unified section that now offers a concise overview of the article’s aims, theoretical framework, and research context.

Additionally, I have corrected the inconsistency at the beginning of Section 2. Instead of referring to the introduction as a “theoretical review,” I now simply refer to it as the “introduction,” ensuring alignment with the actual section headings.

I appreciate your feedback, which has contributed to improving the overall clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Thank you for this valuable observation. I agree that the previous structure of the introduction was too segmented and could cause confusion for the reader. I have therefore restructured the introduction into a single, unified section that now offers a concise overview of the article’s aims, theoretical framework, and research context.

Additionally, I have corrected the inconsistency at the beginning of Section 2. Instead of referring to the introduction as a “theoretical review,” I now simply refer to it as the “introduction,” ensuring alignment with the actual section headings.

I appreciate your feedback, which has contributed to improving the overall clarity and coherence of the manuscript.

In lines 26-28, the author writes: “News programmes inherently contain narrative marketing that keeps the audience’s attention while creating loyalty and brand ties with the channel’s values (Telenkov, Krainikova and Yezhyzhanska, 2022).” It is a very excessive generalisation to use this reference in this way. Telenkov, Krainikova and Yezhyzhanska have studied the Ukrainian reality and are the authors who write: “This analysis focuses on the Ukrainian media, which provides much material on creating a marketing narrative in the conditions of free information market and internal systemic crises, which is vital for understanding the development of democratic institutions in developing countries (emerging and developing Europe).” (Telenkov, Krainikova and Yezhyzhanska, 2022, p. 118). As Spain is not a ‘developing country’, this initial framing by the author, as it appears in the text, doesn't seem to make sense.

I agree with you regarding the citation of Telenkov, Krainikova, and Yezhyzhanska (2022). I fully agree that the generalization initially made was not adequately supported by the scope of that study, which focuses specifically on the Ukrainian media landscape within developing countries.

In response to your comment, I have revised the paragraphic to remove this citation and instead support the argument using more contextually appropriate sources. I now refer to Thussu (2007) and Reinemann et al. (2012), who address the use of narrative and entertainment strategies in news programming within Western democracies, including European countries. These references better align with the media context of Spain, as analysed in this study.

The revised paragraphic can be found on page 1 lines 26 a 29 of the manuscript. The changes have been highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification.

On line 28, 29, where it reads: “Although early television was first linked to entertainment, its ability to disseminate news quickly made it the mass medium par excellence.”; It would be more accurate to make a change for something like: “Although early television was first linked to entertainment, its ability to disseminate news quickly made it the most impactful mass medium.”

I agree with the observation. I have replaced the original sentence in the manuscript with the revised version as suggested. The changes have been highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification.

In the initial theoretical framework, some of the references are old. If it were possible to supplement them with more recent ones, that would be ideal. E.g. (lines 186-189): “The increasing spectacularisation of television transformed the info-show into a constant presence in programme scheduling. It has long since become the epicentre of programming commitments, and is found in the programme schedules of all European countries (Prado, 2002).”

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments. In response to your observation regarding the outdated references in the initial theoretical framework, particularly in lines 186–189, we have carefully reviewed the literature and updated the manuscript accordingly.

Specifically, while we have preserved key foundational references (e.g., Prado, 2002) for their historical relevance and conceptual contributions, we have integrated several more recent and internationally recognised sources to strengthen the theoretical grounding and reflect current academic debate.

I incorporated Esser (2023) and Baym (2020) to contextualise the evolution of infotainment and its influence on current news formats.

About  hybridisation with Van Zoonen (2022) and Chadwick (2017

I included also  Doveling & Schmidt (2023) and Mikos (2022) .To expand on the notion of hypertelevision beyond earlier sources (Scolari, 2008), we added Maas (2021).

These additions have been integrated directly into the relevant parts of the theoretical framework to provide a more comprehensive and current perspective on genre hybridisation, infotainment, and the dynamics of contemporary television formats. The changes have been highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification.

Still on the theoretical framework, in future studies it would make sense to enrich it by using the concept of magazine as it is worked on in the field of Magazine Studies (Eg: Abrahamson, 2024), since the word magazine is placed - and rightly so - in the keywords. The magazine format on television is being analysed, so the basic conceptualisation of this format (magazine) could be deepened.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the need to further develop the conceptualization of the term magazine, particularly given its use as a keyword and its central role in the analysis of the television format. I have incorporated a key reference from the field of Magazine Studies to strengthen the theoretical framework: The Routledge Handbook of Magazine Research: The Future of the Magazine Form (Abrahamson & Prior-Miller, 2015). Although you  refers to a 2024 publication, I have chosen this well-established volume as it offers a comprehensive overview of the structural, editorial, and discursive features of the magazine format. This addition helps to conceptually bridge the magazine as a print medium and its adaptation as a hybrid television format

Research Questions Nº 2 and Nº 4 should be reformulated. At the moment, they are ‘yes/no’ questions and therefore not suitable research questions. However, this is just a formulation problem that is easy to solve.

Accepted. I reformulated these Research Questions

. If it were possible to have a final proofread by a native English speaker, the clarity would be even greater.

Article revised by un English official translator

Specific comments in the PDF provided.:

It is in contexts of great tension and even fear that citizens are demonstrating confi- 44 dence in the credibility of television information ( It happens in medis in general ,see McQuail (2003,pp 428-429) (line 44)

I have not been able to find a work by this author from that year and with that length in any of the university libraries I have access to, not even the online ones. Could there possibly be a mistake in the year or the page numbers? I would be grateful for your assistance.

distinguishing between informative, interpretative and opinion (This refers only journalistic genres? It needs to be clearer) ( line 102)

Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right — the distinction between informative, interpretative, and opinion genres refers specifically to journalistic genres. I have clarified this point in the revised version by explicitly indicating that this classification applies to journalistic content, as proposed by Martínez Albertos (1992) and Cebrián (1992). The changes have been highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification

Prosumers. A brief note explaining de concept is needed ( line 129)

I have added the definition of the word prosumer and included the reference to Toffler. The changes have been highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification

Espejo Público y Mañaneros. Here it can be added the meaning in English ( line 206)

Thank you for the suggestion. I have added the English meanings of Espejo Público (“Public Mirror”) and Mañaneros (“Morning People”) in parentheses upon their first mention, in accordance with APA style and to improve clarity for international readers. Highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification

Two most popular programmes. Adding audience numbers would be a plus (line 207)

From lines 426 to 436, I have included audience data for both programmes, which are the highest-rated in the rankings of public and private television channels, respectively. Highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification

Loss. Decrease would be more accurate (line 220)

Accepted. I have replaced loss with decrease.

Q1 .Consider using RQ1( line 258)

Accepted. I use RQ

This is a question of yes or not answer. This is not appropiate ( line 259)

I have rephrased the question.

The same problem od RQ2 ( line 262)

I have rephrased the question.

Incidents . Please include here what have been defined as “incidents” and provided two or three examples that were found( line 316)

I have clarified the meaning of the term incidents in the abstract, specifying that it refers to newsworthy events of public interest, and I have included two examples to improve clarity for the reader. Highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification

Anchorwoman Anchorwomen? ( line 384)

You are right: anchorwomen

Graphic. Graphicic is a better choice ( line 396)

Accepted

Such dynamics become specially visible at times of special news intensity . What data supports the statement?( line 474)

Lines 94-98 I have included information and a reference supporting this statement. Highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification

P3 Q3(line 500)

I have made the necessary correction. Highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification

…are publicly or privately owned. Must be cleared ( line 502)

Lines 815-816 I made the necessary correction. Highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification

Increasing. What data support this ( line 518)

I made a correction in line 839

Are limited. Can be limited ( line 523)

Accepted. I have made the necessary correction

limits the opportunities for 532

scoops in the news programmes that are usually broadcast afterwards and which are lim- 533

ited to the functions of extending, reinforcing or reiterating the content already broadcast This research did not studied the nees programmes. To be sure of this conclusion the research has to be broader( line 531)

Lines 853-859 I have made a modification in the text. Highlighted in purple font to facilitate their identification