Through Their Eyes: Journalists’ Perspectives on Framing, Bias, and Ethics in Media Coverage of Minorities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

^{I would like to thank the author for their efforts in writing the article about this important topic. But I would like to suggest some improvements as follows:}

^Title:

^{Through Their Eyes: Journalists' Perspectives on Framing, Bias and Ethics in Media Coverage of Minorities}

^{I suggest removing the phrase Through Their Eyes."}

^{The title "Journalists' Perspectives on Framing, Bias, and Ethics in Media Coverage of Minorities is sufficient for the same idea.}

 

^Abstract

^{No need for citation in the abstract. The abstract should primarily summarize the study, not introduce a broad context.}

^{Cut or compress lines 4–7. Briefly state why the topic matters in 1–2 sentences max.}

^{Separate empirical findings (what journalists said) from interpretations (what it implies).}

^{Add a sentence clearly stating what past studies have focused on (e.g., media content) and what gap this study fills (e.g., journalist perceptions).}

^Introduction

^{You can merge the discussion you mentioned about threat/victim framing narrative and other well-known concepts in both the introduction and literature review.}

^{In lines 61-73 and lines 130-148 you discussed the same points.}

^{Summarize framing theory in the introduction. Avoid repeating studies such as Van Gorp (2005) and Mastro (2009) without providing new points.}

^Methodology

^{The methodology lacks explanation of why and how you selected 14 journalists.}

^{You should justify the selection to avoid selection bias and lack of generalizability.}

^{It says “semi-structured interviews” were conducted but omits critical details: sample size, country focus (Greece), and analysis method.}

^{Add: “Fourteen Greek journalists were interviewed; thematic analysis was used.”}

^{Theoretical underutilization}

^{Framing theory is mentioned but not meaningfully integrated.}

^{Explicitly revisit framing theory here. For example:}

^{“The finding that journalists perceive themselves as resisting dominant threat/victim frames suggests a divergence between institutional and individual frame-building.”}

^{Use Entman’s four frame functions (problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation) to categorize journalists' framing efforts.}

^Discussion

^{The discussion seems to be a journalistic summary rather than an academic analysis. It is better to analyze contradictions and use third-party evidence to evaluate the claims.}

^{Much of the discussion simply repeats findings rather than interpreting them in depth.
Why do these findings matter for journalism practice or ethics?}

^{What theoretical models or structural reforms do they support?}

^{How do they contradict, confirm, or extend existing theories?}

^Findings

^{In the findings section make a table or visual for themes primary and secondary}

^Limitations

^{Add paragraphs on limitations of sample size, possible social desirability bias in interviews, lack of minority-group journalists interviewed, and cultural specificity of Greek media.}

^{Reflect on how these might have influenced results.}

 

^Conclusion

^{In a separate section, include 3–5 concrete recommendations for journalists, unions, or policymakers. Highlight how the findings could inform journalism education or newsroom practice.}

^{Recommendation}

^{Propose specific recommendations that establish watchdog mechanisms.}

^{Align recommendations with journalist suggestions from the data.}

^{Metadata sections}

^{State any conflicts of interest.}

^{Add the author contributions.}

^Figures

^{Clarify figures in the text}

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our revised paper, "Through Their Eyes: Journalists' Perspectives on Framing, Bias and Ethics in Media Coverage of Minorities" for consideration in Journalism and Media. We appreciate the effort and time that you have dedicated to provide feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and suggestions; thus, we have incorporated them into the revised manuscript. All changes are highlighted in green within the new version of the manuscript. Please see below a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file.

 

Reviewer 1:

• Reviewer’s comment:

Title:

Through Their Eyes: Journalists' Perspectives on Framing, Bias and Ethics in Media Coverage of Minorities

I suggest removing the phrase Through Their Eyes

The title “Journalists' Perspectives on Framing, Bias, and Ethics in Media Coverage of Minorities” is sufficient for the same idea.

• Authors’ response:

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion regarding the title. We appreciate your perspective and understand that the shorter version also conveys the core focus of the study. However, we have chosen to retain the phrase "Through Their Eyes" because we believe it highlights the contribution of the paper in addressing a gap in the literature by centering journalists’ perspectives. We hope the rationale for keeping the original title is understandable.

 

• Reviewer’s comment:

Abstract

No need for citation in the abstract. The abstract should primarily summarize the study, not introduce a broad context.

Cut or compress lines 4–7. Briefly state why the topic matters in 1–2 sentences max.

Separate empirical findings (what journalists said) from interpretations (what it implies).

Add a sentence clearly stating what past studies have focused on (e.g., media content) and what gap this study fills (e.g., journalist perceptions).

• Authors’ response:

Thank you for the insightful comments.

We have revised the abstract to remove all citations.

We have compressed background information into one concise sentence. The revised text goes as follows: “Global data reveal ongoing inequalities faced by minorities, often reinforced by media portrayals that depict them as threats, victims, or passive individuals without agency”.

We have revised the abstract to clarify that while past studies have focused on media content and representation, this study addresses the underexplored area of journalists’ own perceptions. The updated sentence now clearly defines the research gap, as follows: “While media framing has been extensively studied, especially in terms of media content and representation, few studies have examined how journalists perceive and navigate the coverage of minorities. This study addresses that gap by examining how Greek journalists perceive mainstream media coverage of refugees and migrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people with mental health challenges, with particular attention to their sourcing practices and sense of ethical responsibility”.

We have revised the abstract to clearly distinguish between the empirical findings - expressed through the participants' own observations - and any broader interpretations. The revised version now attributes findings directly to the journalists (e.g., “journalists described...”, “participants emphasized...”) to maintain analytical clarity.

 

• Reviewer’s comment:

Introduction

You can merge the discussion you mentioned about threat/victim framing narrative and other well-known concepts in both the introduction and literature review.

In lines 61-73 and lines 130-148 you discussed the same points.

Summarize framing theory in the introduction. Avoid repeating studies such as Van Gorp (2005) and Mastro (2009) without providing new points.

• Authors’ response:

Thank you for this helpful comment. In response, we have revised the Introduction to summarize framing theory more clearly and concisely, and merged the discussion of dominant frames (threat/victim) to avoid repetition. The references to Van Gorp (2005) and other related studies have been consolidated and now appear only where they offer added analytical value. The overlapping section in the Literature Review has been rewritten to avoid repetition, remove duplicate citations (e.g., Van Gorp, 2005; Moscowitz, 2020), and focus instead on deepening the discussion. The revised text appears in lines 58–73 (Introduction) and 121–135 (Literature Review) of the updated manuscript.

 

• Reviewer’s comment:

Methodology

The methodology lacks explanation of why and how you selected 14 journalists.

You should justify the selection to avoid selection bias and lack of generalizability.

It says “semi-structured interviews” were conducted but omits critical details: sample size, country focus (Greece), and analysis method.

Add: “Fourteen Greek journalists were interviewed; thematic analysis was used”.

• Authors’ response:

Thank you for this helpful comment. We have revised the beginning of the Method section to clearly state the country focus (Greece), sample size (14), and the use of thematic analysis. We also added a justification for the sample, noting that purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity in experience, gender, and media roles, while maintaining relevance to the study's focus on minority coverage. The revised text appears in lines 166 -174 (Methodology) of the updated manuscript.

 

• Reviewer’s comment:

Theoretical underutilization

Framing theory is mentioned but not meaningfully integrated.

Explicitly revisit framing theory here. For example:

“The finding that journalists perceive themselves as resisting dominant threat/victim frames suggests a divergence between institutional and individual frame-building”.

Use Entman’s four frame functions (problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation) to categorize journalists' framing efforts.

• Authors’ response:

Thank you for this valuable comment. We have revised the Discussion section to explicitly integrate Entman’s (1993) framing model. We categorize journalists’ framing efforts according to the four core functions: problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation. This addition highlights the divergence between institutional frame-building and the individual efforts of journalists to promote more inclusive and ethical narratives. The revised text appears in lines 700-713 of the updated manuscript.

 

• Reviewer’s comment:

Discussion

The discussion seems to be a journalistic summary rather than an academic analysis. It is better to analyze contradictions and use third-party evidence to evaluate the claims.

Much of the discussion simply repeats findings rather than interpreting them in depth.

Why do these findings matter for journalism practice or ethics?

What theoretical models or structural reforms do they support?

How do they contradict, confirm, or extend existing theories?

• Authors’ response:

Thank you for this insightful and constructive comment. In response, we have thoroughly revised the Discussion section to enhance its analytical depth and academic grounding.

Specifically:

We have moved beyond summarizing findings and now highlight key contradictions, such as the tension between journalists’ ethical commitments and the institutional reproduction of problematic portrayals.

We have interpreted the findings through relevant theoretical frameworks, including Entman’s (1993) framing theory, Voakes’ (1997) concept of negotiated ethics, and peace journalism theory (Galtung, 2006; Youngblood, 2017).

We have added third-party scholarly evidence (e.g., Calderón et al., 2021; Youngblood, 2017) to contextualize and evaluate participants’ claims.

We clarified the implications for journalism practice and ethics, such as the need for trauma-informed training, ethical sourcing practices, and institutional support for inclusive reporting.

Finally, we positioned our findings in relation to existing literature, showing how they confirm, complicate, and extend previous research on journalism ethics and minority representation.

The revised text appears in lines 696-744 of the updated manuscript.

 

• Reviewer’s comment:

Findings

In the findings section make a table or visual for themes primary and secondary.

• Authors’ response:

Thank you for your feedback. We would like to note that the manuscript already includes visual figures illustrating both primary and secondary themes derived from our thematic analysis. These are located in the findings section. To address your suggestion, we have added explicit references to these figures within the text (e.g., “see Figure 1”) to ensure clarity and enhance visibility.

 

• Reviewer’s comment:

Limitations

Add paragraphs on limitations of sample size, possible social desirability bias in interviews, lack of minority-group journalists interviewed, and cultural specificity of Greek media.

Reflect on how these might have influenced results.

• Authors’ response:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have now expanded the limitations section to directly address the issues raised. Specifically, we acknowledge the purposive nature of our sample. We also recognize the potential for social desirability bias, as participants may have presented their practices in a more ethically favorable light during interviews. Furthermore, we explicitly note the absence of journalists from minority backgrounds in our sample and reflect on how this limits the study’s ability to explore the intersection of identity and journalistic ethics. Lastly, we highlight the cultural specificity of the Greek media landscape and discuss how contextual factors may influence both journalistic practice and the transferability of findings. These additions are included in the revised conclusion section in lines 753-762 of the updated manuscript, along with reflections on how these limitations may have shaped our results and the directions they suggest for future research.

 

• Reviewer’s comment:

Conclusion

In a separate section, include 3-5 concrete recommendations for journalists, unions, or policymakers. Highlight how the findings could inform journalism education or newsroom practice.

 

Recommendation

Propose specific recommendations that establish watchdog mechanisms.

Align recommendations with journalist suggestions from the data.

-     Authors’ response:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, we have added a conclusion section to include concrete, actionable recommendations that directly align with the suggestions raised by the journalists we interviewed. Specifically, we now highlight the importance of integrating ethics and trauma-informed practices into journalism education and newsroom training, in line with participants’ emphasis on applied ethical practice. Additionally, we address the need for internal accountability mechanisms, such as ethics committees, and structured editorial guidelines. These recommendations are now clearly articulated in the conclusion section. All changes can be found in lines 746-776 of the revised manuscript.

 

• Reviewer’s comment:

Metadata sections

State any conflicts of interest.

Add the author contributions.

• Authors’ response:

Thank you for your comment. We confirm that no conflicts of interest have been identified by the authors. This has been explicitly stated in the revised manuscript.

As this submission is currently under blind peer review, information related to author contributions and funding has been intentionally omitted. These details will be added in the final version of the manuscript, following the completion of the review process, in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.

 

• Reviewer’s comment:

Figures

Clarify figures in the text.

• Authors’ response:

Thank you for your helpful suggestion. In response, we have revised the manuscript to clearly reference and integrate all figures into the main text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the author(s) for their research and send them these comments made in a constructive spirit. The work seems pertinent to me and includes some suggestions for its enrichment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our revised paper, "Through Their Eyes: Journalists' Perspectives on Framing, Bias and Ethics in Media Coverage of Minorities" for consideration in Journalism and Media. We appreciate the effort and time that you have dedicated to provide feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and suggestions; thus, we have incorporated them into the revised manuscript. All changes are highlighted in green within the new version of the manuscript. Please see below a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file.

Reviewer II

Reviewer’s Comment 1

Line 134: There is an excess of self-citations by the authors. A certain number is admissible, which is normal when working on a thematic specialization, but there are many authors working on this subject. It is recommended to limit self-citation in this article in a consistent manner.

Author Response:

We appreciate this important observation. Following your suggestion, we have carefully reduced the number of self-citations where possible.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 2

Line 163: The statement in the above quote is not accurate, partly because there are later studies on the perspective of journalists and their coverage of minorities. See for example Vandenberghe - O Douglas, Beazer or Rebillard.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment and for pointing us to these additional relevant studies. We have carefully revised the Literature Review section to acknowledge more recent contributions, including the studies by Vandenberghe, Douglas and Beazer et al. These references have been incorporated in lines 146-153 of the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 3

Line 238: The application of an external coding or coding system is precisely what is required to ensure reliability; the fact that it was created by the author is not exactly a reliability factor.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this observation. As correctly noted, the coding scheme was not externally pre-existing but was developed inductively through the analysis of the interview data, following Braun & Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis approach. After multiple readings of the interview transcripts, initial codes, themes and sub-themes were identified. To strengthen the trustworthiness of the analysis, the coding process included ongoing discussions among the research team. In these discussions, coding decisions and emerging themes were reviewed, debated, and finalized through a process of reflexive dialogue, as recommended in qualitative research (e.g., Papadopoulou & Maniou, 2024; Braun & Clarke, 2006). We have clarified this procedure in the revised Methods section to more accurately reflect the process used in lines 222 - 225 of the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 4

It is advisable to increase the visibility of the signs. It is difficult to read them.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful remark. Following the suggestion, we have revised all figures by adjusting the colors and improving the contrast to ensure that all elements are clearly visible and easy to read.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I would like to thank the authors for the effort they made. It could be one of the few longitudinal media studies. But I would like to highlight some needed improvements and amendments on the following points.

• None of the interviewees were minority journalists themselves. The authors acknowledge this limitation but could suggest future studies more explicitly addressing it.
• While Greece offers a strong case study, the article could further emphasize how these findings are applicable in other Southern/Eastern European or global contexts.
• Certain thematic discussions (especially in the Findings and Discussion sections) repeat concepts such as “lack of human-centered stories” and “official source dominance” multiple times with similar phrasing.
• I encourage the authors to add visual representations of thematic findings that could enhance readability (e.g., infographics for source typologies or ethical levels).
• When discussing media portrayal of minorities and sourcing practices in the Literature Review Section or expanding on intersectional ethical journalism and trauma-sensitive narratives in the Discussion Section, the article could be strengthened by using reference  such as: (A Depiction of Rohingya Refugees in India’s Online News Platforms Following the Shift in the Indian Government’s Stance in 2017).

 It could be added to paragraphs discussing victimization and the intersection of media and disinformation.

• Expand the conclusion to reflect how the findings may inform media practice in comparable contexts beyond Greece.
• Remove or rephrase repeated ideas in the Findings and Discussion sections to improve flow.

Author Response

Reviewer I

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their constructive comments. We have carefully addressed all comments and implemented revisions to strengthen the clarity, depth, and impact of our manuscript.

Reviewer’s Comment

None of the interviewees were minority journalists themselves. The authors acknowledge this limitation but could suggest future studies more explicitly addressing it.

Author’s Response

Thank you for this comment. We have included the following sentence in lines 756–758 of the revised manuscript to explicitly address this point:

“Future research should explore how such reforms take shape in other media systems and include the perspectives of minority journalists themselves, whose experiences are crucial to reimagining inclusive journalistic practice”.

…

Reviewer’s Comment

While Greece offers a strong case study, the article could further emphasize how these findings are applicable in other Southern/Eastern European or global contexts.

Author’s Response

Thank you for this comment. We agree that highlighting the broader applicability of our findings strengthens the contribution of the study. We have revised the conclusion accordingly (lines 737–744) to emphasize that while the study is grounded in the Greek context, the systemic challenges it identifies, such as official source dominance, marginalization of minority voices, and newsroom constraints, are also present across Southern and Eastern European countries. This strengthens the relevance of our findings in similar socio-political contexts and underscores the need for comparative research.

…

Reviewer’s Comment

Certain thematic discussions (especially in the Findings and Discussion sections) repeat concepts such as “lack of human-centered stories” and “official source dominance” multiple times with similar phrasing.

Author’s Response

Thank you for this observation. In response, we carefully reviewed the Findings and Discussion sections to identify and reduce repetition, particularly concerning the themes of “lack of human-centered stories” and “official source dominance.” Where these concepts were repeated with similar phrasing, we reframed key points to ensure clarity.

…

Reviewer’s Comment

I encourage the authors to add visual representations of thematic findings that could enhance readability (e.g., infographics for source typologies or ethical levels).

Author’s Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In response, we revised and clarified the figures related to thematic findings, particularly for: Sourcing practices (Section 4.3) and Ethical levels (Section 4.4), to enhance visual clarity and improve readability. The updated figures more clearly illustrate key concepts discussed by participants, including the spectrum of sourcing practices and the multi-layered nature of ethical responsibility (union, organizational, and personal levels).

We believe these changes contribute to a more accessible and engaging presentation of the findings and thank the reviewer for prompting this improvement.

…

Reviewer’s Comment

When discussing media portrayal of minorities and sourcing practices in the Literature Review Section or expanding on intersectional ethical journalism and trauma-sensitive narratives in the Discussion Section, the article could be strengthened by using reference such as: (A Depiction of Rohingya Refugees in India’s Online News Platforms Following the Shift in the Indian Government’s Stance in 2017). It could be added to paragraphs discussing victimization and the intersection of media and disinformation.

Author’s Response

We thank the reviewer for this valuable recommendation. We are pleased to confirm that the suggested reference (Aldamen & Jaleel, 2024) has been appropriately incorporated into the Literature Review section of the manuscript to support our discussion of media portrayals of minorities.

…

Reviewer’s Comment

Expand the conclusion to reflect how the findings may inform media practice in comparable contexts beyond Greece.

Author’s Response

We thank the reviewer once again for this suggestion. As noted in response to a previous, related comment, we have already revised the Conclusion (lines 737–744) to explicitly address the broader applicability of our findings. In this section, we underscore that while the study is grounded in the Greek context, the systemic challenges it highlights, such as official source dominance, marginalization of minority voices, and structural newsroom constraints, are also present in other Southern and Eastern European media environments. This framing enhances the relevance of our findings in comparable socio-political contexts and contributes to ongoing international discussions on ethical journalism and media representation.

…

Reviewer’s Comment

Remove or rephrase repeated ideas in the Findings and Discussion sections to improve flow.

Author’s Response

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In response, we carefully reviewed the Findings and Discussion sections and revised sections where thematic points were previously repeated with similar phrasing. We have now simplified overlapping content, reduced repetitive statements, and ensured that each instance adds distinct analytical or empirical value.