The Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in the Greek Media: Political Spectacle over Substance—A Peace Journalism Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the authors for taking on an important and timely topic on news coverage of the legalization of same-sex marriage (ssm) in Greece. The manuscript is overall well written and clearly organized. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed before the study would be ready for publication, in my view. It seems as though there is some room (word count) to expand some of these sections for greater clarity and rigor. Below are some areas I hope assist as you continue your work:

• The literature review is not as inclusive or current as it could be. A brief scan of the references demonstrates this as most of the scholarship cited is from  7-13 years ago or longer; there is much more recent scholarship to bring into the conversation especially considering how much the landscape has shifted around the issue of ssm both in the U.S. and abroad. Consider citing a more inclusive body of work; for example, the Moscowitz piece you cited (book chapter from 2020) while the most recent, is more of a summary round-up of work on LGBTQ+ media and does not encompass the author's body of work on ssm (including peer-reviewed journal articles + the book length volume featuring original research on this topic).
• Similarly, consider finding and citing more inclusive scholarship of media coverage of ssm in other countries outside the US and/or depictions of LGBTQ+ communities in entertainment media, in particular in Western Europe and/or other Christian-dominated parts of the world.
• Likewise, the body of literature on how conflict framing drives news is much larger scholarly conversation.
• You provide a fairly solid justification of the peace journalism model to focus on social movements/conflict, but again the literature here is not particularly is typically from a decade + ago—is there more recent scholarship to cite here?
• Your Method section needs to be expanded and clarified, as it leaves the reader with unanswered questions. First, your sampling timeframe is unclear – did you only examine stories published just on that day of legalization, February 15, 2024, or was it the week, the month, etc.? How was the sample selected? For example, how were stories eliminated? Did you include all stories, such as op-eds and/or briefs? Was this a census of all stories during your (xxx) timeframe, or did you sample stories? Were these outlets English language media, and if not, how did were they translated? 
• You report that ‘the article’ was the unit of analysis, but do clarify what that involves -- was this the headline, subhead, body/text, images, sources, captions, pull quotes, video/multimedia if applicable? Please specify. 
• The detail regarding type of media outlet/stories samples really matters as it can impact findings if you are comparing 'apples to oranges.' There is pretty solid justification of sampling from different political leanings, but reading the findings, some of the articles cited read like op-eds and/or tabloid vs. traditional standard news articles that hew to standards of objectivity. We simply need more context here.
• When you are coding, did you consider these mutually exclusive categories, i.e. could a story mostly rely on official sources yet also include LGBTQ+ voices? This, too, is an important detail and is not all together clear.
• Food for thought: in this context, does 'structural inequalities‘ make more sense as a category than 'structural violence’ 
• Reading the findings section brings up more questions about coding and methods. For example, at one point you report that celebrities cited 'often not to support the issue, but rather criticize it.' But did you code for support/opposition for each source/source category? If so, coding for source opinion would be a different unit of analysis it would seem, and would need to be reported and described in the methods section.
• Likewise, just like source opinion, if the impact of the media outlet's political orientation was a research question, it needs to be stated as such and operationalized in the methods
• While the findings are interesting, they do not necessarily bring new insights or perspectives to the body of literature on ssm/LGBTQ+ representations in media (tend to echo previous work), and thus need to be developed and expanded more. Think through how this study contributes to and expands our understandings of media coverage of these issues.
• The insights regarding a peace journalism perspective regarding social justice issues are interesting. However, while this may sound cynical, why would we expect news media (given the increasingly commercial imperatives they face) to adopt a peace framing? You write, 'peace journalism remains underutilized in mainstream reporting on LGBTQ+ issues, despite its potential to foster inclusive and empathetic public discourse.' Sadly, that’s not the job of media outlets/journalists, especially given the monetary pressures on news outlets to drive readership and turn a profit or fold under. While you cite Sender's work a bit here, there needs to be more of a recognition and robust discussion of how the commercial imperatives on news (and perhaps these particular outlets you cite) skew towards a conflict perspective (and sensationalized coverage) which significantly limit how stories about LGBTQ+ communities and issues are shaped, the sources they cite, how headlines are crafted, etc.
• Finally, I recommend shoring up your tables/reporting so that the findings reflect the organization of the methods. For example, if you compare Table 1 and Table 2, the absence/inclusion of LGBTQ+ voices is 1 & 7 in Table 1/Methods but presented as 1 & 5 in Table 2/Findings. This makes it difficult for the reader to track how your coding categories are then reflected in/presented in your findings.

I hope these perspectives are useful as you continue to revise this important study. Good luck as you continue your work on this project!

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the thoughtful, detailed, and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate the time and care invested in reviewing our manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of the reviewer’s comments. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript and are highlighted in green.

Reviewer 1 Comments and Author Responses

Literature Review

Reviewer’s Comments

The literature review is not as inclusive or current as it could be. A brief scan of the references demonstrates this as most of the scholarship cited is from 7-13 years ago or longer; there is much more recent scholarship to bring into the conversation especially considering how much the landscape has shifted around the issue of ssm both in the U.S. and abroad. Consider citing a more inclusive body of work; for example, the Moscowitz piece you cited (book chapter from 2020) while the most recent, is more of a summary round-up of work on LGBTQ+ media and does not encompass the author's body of work on ssm (including peer-reviewed journal articles + the book length volume featuring original research on this topic).

Similarly, consider finding and citing more inclusive scholarship of media coverage of ssm in other countries outside the US and/or depictions of LGBTQ+ communities in entertainment media, in particular in Western Europe and/or other Christian-dominated parts of the world.

Likewise, the body of literature on how conflict framing drives news is much larger scholarly conversation.

You provide a fairly solid justification of the peace journalism model to focus on social movements/conflict, but again the literature here is not particularly is typically from a decade + ago - is there more recent scholarship to cite here?

Author(s) Response:

We thank the reviewer for these valuable suggestions. In response, we have substantially revised and expanded the literature review to incorporate more recent and diverse scholarship. Specifically, we have deepened our engagement with Moscowitz’s full body of work, including the monograph The Battle Over Marriage: Gay Rights and the Media (2010). We have also integrated recent studies on media coverage of same-sex marriage (SSM), bringing in international perspectives. In addition, we have included more recent contributions to peace journalism literature, which extend the framework beyond war reporting. To our knowledge, this study is the first to explicitly apply the peace journalism framework to the coverage of LGBTQ+ rights, highlighting its potential to foster more inclusive, non-polarizing media narratives around queer identities and struggles. These additions have significantly strengthened the theoretical foundation and enhanced the contemporary relevance of our manuscript (see pp. 2–4 of the revised version).

Μethod

Reviewer’s Comments

Your Method section needs to be expanded and clarified, as it leaves the reader with unanswered questions. A) First, your sampling timeframe is unclear - did you only examine stories published just on that day of legalization, February 15, 2024, or was it the week, the month, etc.? B) How was the sample selected? For example, how were stories eliminated? Did you include all stories, such as op-eds and/or briefs? Was this a census of all stories during your (xxx) timeframe, or did you sample stories? C) Were these outlets English language media, and if not, how did were they translated? D) You report that ‘the article’ was the unit of analysis, but do clarify what that involves - was this the headline, subhead, body/text, images, sources, captions, pull quotes, video/multimedia if applicable? Please specify. E) The detail regarding type of media outlet/stories samples really matters as it can impact findings if you are comparing 'apples to oranges.' There is pretty solid justification of sampling from different political leanings, but reading the findings, some of the articles cited read like op-eds and/or tabloid vs. traditional standard news articles that hew to standards of objectivity. We simply need more context here. F) When you are coding, did you consider these mutually exclusive categories, i.e. could a story mostly rely on official sources yet also include LGBTQ+ voices? This, too, is an important detail and is not all together clear. G) Food for thought: in this context, does 'structural inequalities’ make more sense as a category than 'structural violence’. H) Likewise, just like source opinion, if the impact of the media outlet's political orientation was a research question, it needs to be stated as such and operationalized in the methods.

Authors Response

1. We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. The sampling timeframe has now been clarified in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we analyzed news stories published between January 3, 2024, when public debate over the legislation began, and March 3, 2024, a few days after the law was passed in Parliament. This period captures both the lead-up to the vote and the immediate aftermath, allowing us to examine narrative emphasis during the peak of media attention.
2. We appreciate the reviewer’s thorough and thoughtful questions regarding our sampling strategy. In response, we clarify that we collected all news stories published by the selected outlets during the defined timeframe, with the exception of very short news briefs that lacked sufficient content to allow meaningful content analysis. We included all eligible types of stories, such as news reports, op-eds, etc., provided they met the length and topical relevance criteria.
3. All articles were sourced from the Greek-language editions of the selected media outlets. Since Greek is the mother tongue of the researchers, no translation was necessary for coding and initial analysis. However, for the purposes of analysis and reporting in this manuscript, translations into English were conducted by fluent members of the research team, ensuring accuracy and consistency (see p. 5 of the revised manuscript).
4. We thank the reviewer for this helpful request for clarification. In the revised manuscript, we have specified that the unit of analysis included the headline, subhead, full article text, and quoted sources. This clarification has now been added to the methodology section (see p. 5 of the revised manuscript).
5. We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the types of stories included in the sample - namely, news reports, op-eds, and feature articles - as long as they met basic criteria for length and topical relevance. This diversity of formats reflects the full range of how same-sex marriage was framed in mainstream media coverage during the selected period. We also acknowledge that some outlets, such as Proto Thema, employ a more sensationalist tone compared to others. While Proto Thema is not a tabloid in format, its editorial style often blends hard news with populist framing, provocative language, and emotionally charged headlines, making it a relevant example of mainstream yet ideologically distinct media in the Greek context. This variation was intentional, as our aim was to examine the diverse rhetorical strategies present in Greek media coverage of LGBTQ+ issues and implement a more comprehensive examination of framing practices across the ideological spectrum. We have now expanded the description of each outlet's characteristics in the methodology section to provide additional context and to clarify how such stylistic differences were accounted for in the analysis (see p. 5 of the revised manuscript).
6. We thank the reviewer for this insightful question. In our coding process, categories were mutually exclusive only when they captured the same analytical dimension. For instance, “absence of LGBTQ+ voice” and “presence of LGBTQ+ voice” were mutually exclusive categories, as they referred to the same narrative element. However, when categories measured different aspects of a story, they were not mutually exclusive. For example, a single article could be coded as including both official sources (e.g., government representatives or religious authorities) and LGBTQ+ voices. We have clarified this distinction in the revised methodology section (see p. 7 of the manuscript).
7. We appreciate this thoughtful observation. We chose to retain the term “structural violence” in order to remain conceptually aligned with Galtung’s original peace journalism framework (Galtung, 1998), which underpins our study. However, as clarified in the manuscript, our use of the term explicitly refers to institutional injustices and inequalities embedded in laws, systems, and structures—for example, legal restrictions on adoption rights for LGBTQ+ individuals. We acknowledge the proximity between the two terms and have ensured that the manuscript provides a clear explanation of how structural violence is understood and operationalized in our analysis (see p. 6 of the revised manuscript).
8. The reviewer is correct, and we appreciate this valuable suggestion. In response, we have added a specific research question to reflect the role of political orientation in shaping media coverage. The revised manuscript now includes the following research question: How does the political orientation of Greek media outlets influence the framing of same-sex marriage? (see page 2 of the revised manuscript). This research question has been integrated into the introduction and appropriately addressed in the findings and discussion sections.

Findings

Reviewer’s Comments

Α. Reading the findings section brings up more questions about coding and methods. For example, at one point you report that celebrities cited 'often not to support the issue, but rather criticize it.' But did you code for support/opposition for each source/source category? If so, coding for source opinion would be a different unit of analysis it would seem, and would need to be reported and described in the methods section.

B. Finally, I recommend shoring up your tables/reporting so that the findings reflect the organization of the methods. For example, if you compare Table 1 and Table 2, the absence/inclusion of LGBTQ+ voices is 1 & 7 in Table 1/Methods but presented as 1 & 5 in Table 2/Findings. This makes it difficult for the reader to track how your coding categories are then reflected in/presented in your findings.

C. While the findings are interesting, they do not necessarily bring new insights or perspectives to the body of literature on ssm/LGBTQ+ representations in media (tend to echo previous work), and thus need to be developed and expanded more. Think through how this study contributes to and expands our understandings of media coverage of these issues.

The insights regarding a peace journalism perspective regarding social justice issues are interesting. However, while this may sound cynical, why would we expect news media (given the increasingly commercial imperatives they face) to adopt a peace framing? You write, 'peace journalism remains underutilized in mainstream reporting on LGBTQ+ issues, despite its potential to foster inclusive and empathetic public discourse.' Sadly, that’s not the job of media outlets/journalists, especially given the monetary pressures on news outlets to drive readership and turn a profit or fold under. While you cite Sender's work a bit here, there needs to be more of a recognition and robust discussion of how the commercial imperatives on news (and perhaps these particular outlets you cite) skew towards a conflict perspective (and sensationalized coverage) which significantly limit how stories about LGBTQ+ communities and issues are shaped, the sources they cite, how headlines are crafted, etc.

Author(s) Response

A. We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue. We did not systematically code for the support or opposition expressed by each individual source or source category, and we recognize that the phrasing in the findings section may have implied otherwise. To avoid confusion, we have deleted the relevant phrasing in the findings section (see pp. 7 of the revised manuscript).

B. We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion. While we understand the importance of consistency between the methods and findings sections, we would like to clarify that the organization of Table 1 and Table 2 serves two distinct purposes. In Table 1 (Methods), indicators are presented conceptually according to our adapted model for media framing of LGBTQ+ issues, which reflects our theoretical framework. In contrast, Table 2 (Findings) presents the same indicators reordered by frequency of appearance in the data to provide an empirically grounded overview of the most prevalent patterns in the news coverage.

C. We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive comment, which has helped us improve the clarity and depth of the Discussion and Conclusions section. In response, we have substantially revised this section (pp. 11-12) to more clearly articulate how the study contributes original insights to the field of LGBTQ+ media representation and peace journalism.

Specifically, we have expanded the discussion to show how our study extends the peace journalism framework to a new empirical domain - that of domestic LGBTQ+ rights legislation - rather than the traditional contexts of war or geopolitical conflict. By applying peace journalism to the media framing of same-sex marriage legalization, we demonstrate its analytical and normative potential in analyzing identity-based struggles and social justice issues in contemporary democracies.

We also incorporated a critical reflection on the structural and institutional dynamics shaping media content. While our findings align with previous literature documenting the marginalization of LGBTQ+ voices and the dominance of conflict-driven narratives, we now frame these not only as ideological choices but also as the result of systemic pressures and professional routines, such as reliance on official sources, limited newsroom resources, and lack of diversity training. This framing draws on the concept of journalism of conventions (p. 12), which helps explain how even non-sensationalist reporting can indirectly contribute to exclusion and symbolic violence through seemingly neutral routines.

Furthermore, we now explicitly acknowledge that the commercial logic of contemporary journalism, especially in competitive media markets like Greece, may disincentivize the adoption of peace journalism practices. Nevertheless, we argue that peace journalism retains value as a critical and normative framework, not necessarily for its immediate feasibility, but for its potential to expose what is absent in mainstream reporting and to challenge journalists, educators, and researchers to pursue more inclusive, ethical alternatives.

We hope these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns and better demonstrate the conceptual and practical significance of our findings.

Once again, we thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback, which has significantly enhanced the quality of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions satisfactorily address all concerns and we remain at your disposal for any further clarifications.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is, overall, an interesting and well-written paper on the way Greek news media frames same-sex marriage. I particularly appreciated the application of peace journalism, as it provides a clear analytical framework that helps pinpoint conflict-escalating reporting and distinguish it from more inclusive and ultimately transformative reporting. I have only a few minor comments, which should nevertheless be addressed before the manuscript can be published.

The first, and in my opinion, most consequential comment concerns the need for situating the paper within the broader literature on news media framing and LGBTQ+ issues. The authors allocate considerable space in the literature review to existing studies of (general) media portrayals of LGBTQ+ people (page 3). While interesting, that space could be better used to review existing literature on news media, specifically. What do we know about how LGBTQ+ issues (can be other issues than same-sex marriage) are represented in the news? Relatedly, what do we know about how the peace journalism framework has been used to study different issues? On page 4, the authors claim that more issues – e.g., migration, gender, and human rights – have been examined in previous peace journalism studies, but do not provide further details on the findings of such studies. Without this contextualization within the broader literature, it is unclear what the paper's contribution is, beyond the specific empirical examination of Greek news media. In other words, the reader is left wondering (i) how the undertaken research expands our understanding of reporting on LGBTQ+ issues and/or peace journalism and (ii) how innovative this study is – i.e., is it simply an application of the peace journalism framework to a new case?

The second comment concerns the presentation of the method and findings. I have appreciated the clear presentation of the 12 indicators, but would have also liked to see how these were operationalized. A version of Table 1 that also illustrates how each indicator has been operationalized (through examples) would be very helpful in this regard. Throughout section 4.1, the authors have scattered what seem to be titles of news reports (for example, “Petros Xekoukis: The bill on same-sex couples is a mistake that the Greek society will 245 pay for”). It is unclear what most of these direct citations or titles are an example of. The authors should more clearly signpost why that title is there and how it supports the argument(s) they are making.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank Reviewer II for their careful reading, encouraging feedback, and insightful suggestions. We greatly appreciate your constructive input, which has been highly valuable in helping us improve the manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment. Reviewer’s comments are included in italics, followed by our responses.

Reviewer II Comments and Author Responses

Literature Review

The first, and in my opinion, most consequential comment concerns the need for situating the paper within the broader literature on news media framing and LGBTQ+ issues. The authors allocate considerable space in the literature review to existing studies of (general) media portrayals of LGBTQ+ people (page 3). While interesting, that space could be better used to review existing literature on news media, specifically. What do we know about how LGBTQ+ issues (can be other issues than same-sex marriage) are represented in the news? Relatedly, what do we know about how the peace journalism framework has been used to study different issues? On page 4, the authors claim that more issues – e.g., migration, gender, and human rights – have been examined in previous peace journalism studies, but do not provide further details on the findings of such studies. Without this contextualization within the broader literature, it is unclear what the paper's contribution is, beyond the specific empirical examination of Greek news media. In other words, the reader is left wondering (i) how the undertaken research expands our understanding of reporting on LGBTQ+ issues and/or peace journalism and (ii) how innovative this study is – i.e., is it simply an application of the peace journalism framework to a new case?

Response:

We fully agree that a clearer and more targeted literature review was necessary. In response, we revised the relevant section of the manuscript to offer a more focused discussion of news media framing of LGBTQ+ issues, especially regarding conflict narratives, sourcing, and moral panic framings. These updates are highlighted in green in the tracked version of the manuscript to facilitate review (see pp. 2-4).

In addition, we clarified the paper’s contribution throughout the discussion and conclusion. Specifically, we explain that the study does not simply apply the peace journalism model to a new case (that of Greece) but rather recontextualizes and extends it to address identity-based struggles and social justice issues. This approach demonstrates how peace journalism can help identify patterns of structural exclusion and routine professional practices, even in contexts not typically associated with armed conflict. We emphasize that this methodological adaptation contributes both empirically and conceptually to broader conversations around ethical and inclusive media representation of minority rights (see pp.11-12).

We also expanded literature review section on peace journalism to better situate the study within the evolving field of peace journalism. Specifically, we now reference key studies that have applied peace journalism principles to areas beyond war reporting, including migration and asylum (Youngblood, 2017), gender representation (Yiping, 2012; Tivona, 2011), religious diversity (Anderson, 2015), and indigenous rights and systemic racism (Chow-White & McMahon, 2011). These studies demonstrate the model’s adaptability to “cold conflicts” and structural inequalities, and we use them to argue that peace journalism offers a valuable framework for understanding symbolic exclusion and media bias in identity-based struggles. This expanded discussion is now included in the revised version of the manuscript (see paragraph beginning with “Over the past two decades, peace journalism…” in the Literature Review section) (see pp. 4-5 of the revised manuscript).

We hope that these additions address the reviewer’s concern and more clearly establish the paper’s originality and scholarly contribution.

Operationalization of the indicators and clarification of examples in the findings

Reviewer comment:

The second comment concerns the presentation of the method and findings. I have appreciated the clear presentation of the 12 indicators, but would have also liked to see how these were operationalized. A version of Table 1 that also illustrates how each indicator has been operationalized (through examples) would be very helpful in this regard. Throughout section 4.1, the authors have scattered what seem to be titles of news reports (for example, “Petros Xekoukis: The bill on same-sex couples is a mistake that the Greek society will 245 pay for”). It is unclear what most of these direct citations or titles are an example of. The authors should more clearly signpost why that title is there and how it supports the argument(s) they are making.

Author response:

Thank you for this constructive comment. In response, we have revised the Method section to provide clearer explanations of how each of the 12 indicators was operationalized, incorporating illustrative examples to clarify how the coding criteria were applied in practice. Additionally, in the Findings (Section 4.1), we have carefully revised the use of news headlines and direct citations. Where appropriate, we now explicitly signpost how each example supports the corresponding analytical point. These revisions aim to improve clarity and coherence, and to ensure stronger alignment between the analytical framework and empirical findings.

We believe that the revisions have significantly improved the manuscript’s clarity, contribution, and alignment with existing scholarship. We are grateful for your close reading and constructive critique.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' thoughtful consideration of the reviews and comments and their work on advancing their article, which has shown improvement and clarification in many regards. Here are some issues that still need to be addressed, in my view:

The main issue remains that while the topic (news coverage of ssm in Greece) and the approach (theoretical application of peace journalism on social issues) is novel and has the opportunity to advance the scholarly conversation, the piece/research seems inherently 'destined' to find what we would have been expected at the onset (without doing the study): that conflict perspectives drive news, that LGBTQ+ perspectives are given short shrift, that right-leaning media tend to be more conflict driven and less humanitarian in their approach(es). This is what prior research has indicated, and (not to be cynical) is expected would be the case here (perhaps stated as hypotheses, but that isn't really quite the point you are going for). Therefore, so as not to be redundant with prior work, the piece needs to do more to differentiate itself and highlight how it is advancing the work in this area rather than replicate it. 

Some more minor issues that might help address this larger problem:

• I see improvements in sources but the manuscript still features mostly primarily older work on ssm and on depictions of lgbtq people in media in general, again, considering how much has shifted on these issues in the past decade. I see some new additional sources here and recognize the effort, but another more complete and robust search of peer-reviewed articles from the 2020s on could be fruitful.
• Similarly, given that the research features non-U.S. media coverage (which is laudatory), there is a lack of research cited here on international coverage of ssm or queer media in general
• I wonder if more specific, more formalized research questions would help structure the literature, findings and discussion (RQ1, RQ2, etc.) surrounding peace vs. conflict framing, left vs. right leaning media, use of voice/sourcing patterns in coverage, etc. As stated now they are a bit general and exploratory, even though as previously stated the research here ended up primarily supporting prior work in this area.
• Interestingly, I wondered in your discussion if celebrities (e.g., actors, singers) ended up serving as stand-ins or as 'proxies' for queer voices (which were either unavailable to cite or excluded from coverage)
• In the findings, you stated "political affiliation appeared to influence media framing to a lesser extent than expected" and cited a few examples to support this. Were these differences statistically significant? Did you test for that? Do you have theoretical support to explain why this might be the case (other than peace perspectives are not popular and/or profitable)? 
• The discussion does a better job of centering conflict as a primary driver of profit centered news, especially as 'controversial' social issues are breaking. However, conflict is a longstanding and well established news value, and (again, hate to sound cynical!) the expectation that news outlets “ought to prioritize... inclusion, empathy, and structural understanding” can read a bit naive. Indeed, there are many (most?) journalists who would disagree with this prescription for news. It's not that I don't see and empathize with your point here, but I caution the authors on prescribing that news organizations are expected to 

  "adopt more inclusive practices, amplify marginalized voices, and engage with frameworks such as peace journalism that emphasize empathy, structural insight, and social justice" Again, most newspapers owners (/media conglomerates), editors, reporters, etc. would say that is not the job of news professionals.

  Thank you for considering these points as you continue work on this project.  

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

We would like to sincerely thank the Reviewer for the constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate the time and care invested in reviewing our manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of the reviewer’s comments. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript and are highlighted in green:

Reviewer’s Comments and Author Responses

Reviewer’s comment:

1. The main issue remains that while the topic (news coverage of ssm in Greece) and the approach (theoretical application of peace journalism on social issues) is novel and has the opportunity to advance the scholarly conversation, the piece/research seems inherently 'destined' to find what we would have been expected at the onset (without doing the study): that conflict perspectives drive news, that LGBTQ+ perspectives are given short shrift, that right-leaning media tend to be more conflict driven and less humanitarian in their approach(es). This is what prior research has indicated, and (not to be cynical) is expected would be the case here (perhaps stated as hypotheses, but that isn't really quiet the point you are going for). Therefore, so as not to be redundant with prior work, the piece needs to do more to differentiate itself and highlight how it is advancing the work in this area rather than replicate it.

Author(s) Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive comment. In response, we have revised the manuscript to more clearly articulate the study’s contribution and to clarify how it builds on, rather than replicates, existing literature.

Specifically:

1. In the Introduction (lines 45–54) and Literature Review (lines 236–249), we now emphasize how the application of the peace journalism model:
   • Moves beyond identifying stereotypical representations (e.g., framing LGBTQ+ individuals as threats to moral values),
   • Enables an analysis of underlying journalistic practices, such as sourcing hierarchies, exclusion of marginalized voices, and the lack of structural context and rights-based solutions,
   • And functions not only as a diagnostic tool but also as a normative framework for socially responsible and inclusive reporting.
2. In the Discussion section (pages 12–14), we revised several parts of the manuscript to directly respond to the reviewer’s concern. While the study acknowledges certain well-established trends, it also shifts the analytical focus toward the ethical possibilities that emerge through the lens of peace journalism. To avoid an overly idealistic interpretation, we anchor this normative potential in empirical evidence from our previous research (Author et al., XXXX), which demonstrated that individual journalists—including those working in mainstream outlets—often take personal initiative to incorporate inclusive sourcing practices and highlight structural inequalities. We argue that these actions reflect ethical commitments shaped by journalism education, ongoing training, and editorial decision-making, even in the absence of broader institutional reform.

We hope these revisions more clearly communicate the study’s contribution to advancing both the theoretical and practical dimensions of media coverage of identity-based issues.

…

Reviewer’s Comment

Some more minor issues that might help address this larger problem:

I see improvements in sources but the manuscript still features mostly primarily older work on ssm and on depictions of lgbtq people in media in general, again, considering how much has shifted on these issues in the past decade. I see some new additional sources here and recognize the effort, but another more complete and robust search of peer-reviewed articles from the 2020s on could be fruitful.

Similarly, given that the research features non-U.S. media coverage (which is laudatory), there is a lack of research cited here on international coverage of ssm or queer media in general.

Author(s) Response

We are grateful for the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive comments. In response, we have substantially revised and expanded the Literature Review to better reflect both recent scholarly developments and a more internationally diverse body of work.

The revised section incorporates more contemporary research published over the past decade, addressing evolving media portrayals of LGBTQ+ individuals in the news and the changing discourse surrounding same-sex marriage. We have also broadened the geographical scope of the literature to include a wider range of non-U.S. studies, offering comparative insights that strengthen the global relevance of our analysis and situate the Greek case within a broader international framework.

All changes can be seen on pages 2 to 5 of the revised manuscript.

…

Reviewer’s comment:

I wonder if more specific, more formalized research questions would help structure the literature, findings and discussion (RQ1, RQ2, etc.) surrounding peace vs. conflict framing, left vs. right leaning media, use of voice/sourcing patterns in coverage, etc. As stated now they are a bit general and exploratory, even though as previously stated the research here ended up primarily supporting prior work in this area.

Author(s) Response:

Thank you very much for this thoughtful recommendation. We agree that articulating the research questions more explicitly would help strengthen the structure of the manuscript.

In response, we have now incorporated two formal research questions at the end of the Literature Review section (revised manuscript, p. 6). These questions clarify the analytical and comparative aims of the study and are directly aligned with the peace/conflict framing lens and the media sample under examination:

…

Reviewer’s Comment

Interestingly, I wondered in your discussion if celebrities (e.g., actors, singers) ended up serving as stand-ins or as 'proxies' for queer voices (which were either unavailable to cite or excluded from coverage).

Author(s) Response

We appreciate this thought-provoking observation and agree that the role of celebrities in public discourse – particularly in cases where marginalized voices are underrepresented – deserves deeper exploration.

As noted in our earlier response, we did not systematically code for the stance (supportive or oppositional) of each source or for any representational function they may have played. In light of this, and following the reviewer’s previous comment in Round I, we have removed the earlier phrasing that implied such a coding existed (see p. 7 of the revised manuscript).

For the same reason, we have chosen not to expand the discussion to include the idea of celebrities acting as ‘proxies’ for queer voices, even though we recognize it as a valuable and insightful interpretive possibility. We believe this line of inquiry could be meaningfully pursued in future research using methods designed to explore source function and speaker identity in greater depth.

…

Reviewer’s Comment

In the findings, you stated "political affiliation appeared to influence media framing to a lesser extent than expected" and cited a few examples to support this. Were these differences statistically significant? Did you test for that? Do you have theoretical support to explain why this might be the case (other than peace perspectives are not popular and/or profitable)?

Author(s) Response:

We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. We did not conduct statistical tests to determine whether the observed differences across media outlets were statistically significant, as the study was designed to be primarily descriptive in nature and our content analysis focused on identifying patterns in framing indicators.

The statement that political affiliation appeared to influence media framing to a lesser extent than expected was based on observed frequency patterns in the dataset. The explanation offered - that the bill received support from multiple parties in Parliament, which may have led to a more moderate tone across ideologically diverse outlets - was included in the original version of the manuscript (p. 9) as a contextual interpretation, rather than a theoretically driven or statistically tested conclusion.

We fully agree that future studies could use inferential statistical methods to investigate these relationships more systematically, and we appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion in this direction.

...

Reviewer’s Comment

The discussion does a better job of centering conflict as a primary driver of profit centered news, especially as 'controversial' social issues are breaking. However, conflict is a longstanding and well-established news value, and (again, hate to sound cynical!) the expectation that news outlets “ought to prioritize... inclusion, empathy, and structural understanding” can read a bit naive. Indeed, there are many (most?) journalists who would disagree with this prescription for news. It's not that I don't see and empathize with your point here, but I caution the authors on prescribing that news organizations are expected to "adopt more inclusive practices, amplify marginalized voices, and engage with frameworks such as peace journalism that emphasize empathy, structural insight, and social justice". Again, most newspapers owners (/media conglomerates), editors, reporters, etc. would say that is not the job of news professionals.

Author(s) Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful observation and understand the concern that peace journalism may come across as overly idealistic in light of dominant news values and structural constraints. This critique is both important and widely discussed within journalism studies.

However, as stated in the manuscript (p. 11), our perspective is grounded not only in theory but also in empirical research, including prior interviews with journalists in Greece. Several of these journalists, working even within conventional media organizations, have taken concrete steps to incorporate inclusive sourcing, highlight systemic inequalities, and amplify underrepresented voices. While such efforts may not, on their own, overturn dominant patterns of representation, they suggest that ethical, inclusive reporting is not seen as incompatible with professional standards, but rather as an integral part of them. In this context, we present peace journalism not as a utopian prescription, but as a critical and practical framework for expanding journalistic responsibility.

Furthermore, while conflict is indeed a well-established news value—as originally theorized by Johan Galtung and Mari Holmboe Ruge (1965)—we believe this does not mean it should go unquestioned. In fact, Galtung himself later clarified that his work identifying conflict and immediacy as defining features of news reporting was meant as a warning, not a guide[1]. Our use of peace journalism continues in that tradition, offering a lens to interrogate dominant norms and draw attention to existing, grounded alternatives already practiced by some professionals.

In that spirit, the paper does not assert that all news organizations must immediately adopt peace journalism principles. Rather, it aims to contribute to a wider debate about the values that guide reporting, especially when covering identity-based struggles and marginalized groups.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/18/johan-galtung-news-principles-journalists-too-negative