Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this is such a useful article and what you have found is rather universal, I would guess, so I think the title does not need to mention “Spanish media” (the abstract can keep that nation-specific location, but I don’t want readers to think it is so specific to Spain that it isn’t applicable to most news outlets following a western model). And I think you should clarify in the title that it is “news media” or “journalism,” and mention this is the perspective of journalists or interviews with journalists about their approach.

Very on-point/relevant/focused introduction and literature review that follows a critical animal studies standpoint and critical media standpoint to explain the major aspects of the news media profession embedded within a speciesist culture (macro level) and the challenges that poses for journalists working at the micro level. Good variety of classic/foundational literature and newer literature.  I could see myself using this paper in an environmental or animal studies media course to introduce students to these concepts in a compelling yet concise way.

I’m thinking about some readers who may question the premise that an anti-speciesist journalist is really a journalist since they are more into advocating for a social cause and countering the status quo. Consider addressing that definition of a journalist further in the introduction or lit review – the legitimacy and legacy of advocacy journalism in general.

The journal can reconfigure Table 1 to make it easier for readers to follow in terms of how it is formatted.

In the findings, I think the way you organized the 5 categories and 10 strategies made sense and was instructive of the various ways (beyond just writing) that the journalists must operate. They are indeed strategies.

I think the quote at the bottom of pg 10 is very powerful about right wing media culture and how the countryside’s identity is so strongly associated with various types of animal exploitation now that it shuts down any debate. I think that is true in many countries – this urban/rural divide.

Dana is mentioned several times, and some readers won’t recognize the context, so find some way to briefly explain that upon first mention.

For “5.3.2. Integrating Animal and Human Narratives Without Comparison,” add a bit more explanation so we can distinguish between journalists using a kind of frame extension to bring nonhuman animal issues in with human struggles vs when the journalists are trying to show that nonhuman animal issues are equally important on their own. The latter sounds like they are not necessarily including the human struggles in those stories, but I think you are saying they still do include human issues but somehow show the nonhuman issues too in a way that gives them equal weight (presumably avoiding an anthropocentric angle on those nonhuman stories). Perhaps another example would help here if these two are going to be put into one strategy. Like what are the various ways that a journalist could report on wild animals or companion animals affected by big storms that are also affecting humans?  I think I might be conflating this strategy with the previous “cross issues framing approach.”

Something else you could add to the future directions is a comparison of antispeciesist journalism strategies with that of other counter-hegemonic movements, like for LGBTQ+ rights or feminism or racial justice. What lessons from those social movements could be applied to help anti-speciesist journalists navigate the hegemony of the current profession? Or in what ways does the nonhuman animal issue deviate and require some special approaches (given that it is outside of the human realm)?

Excellent study – well written and very useful insights. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Below, I address each of your comments in turn, explaining the changes made in response.

• I think this is such a useful article and what you have found is rather universal, I would guess, so I think the title does not need to mention “Spanish media” (the abstract can keep that nation-specific location, but I don’t want readers to think it is so specific to Spain that it isn’t applicable to most news outlets following a western model). And I think you should clarify in the title that it is “news media” or “journalism,” and mention this is the perspective of journalists or interviews with journalists about their approach.

I thank the Reviewer 1 for their feedback on the title. In response to their suggestion, I have revised the title to foreground the perspective of journalists, which is central to the study's methodological design. I believe this better reflects what the study investigates, as in journalistic practice and agency, rather than its textual output. I have retained “written media” rather than “news media,” as this term is consistent with the terminology used throughout the abstract and manuscript, and accurately reflects the composition of the sample (journalists working in text-based outlets, as opposed to broadcast media).

Per the editor's guidance, I have retained the reference to Spain in the title, as the empirical findings are grounded in the Spanish media and political context, even where the strategies identified may have broader applicability.

• I’m thinking about some readers who may question the premise that an anti-speciesist journalist is really a journalist since they are more into advocating for a social cause and countering the status quo. Consider addressing that definition of a journalist further in the introduction or lit review – the legitimacy and legacy of advocacy journalism in general.

I thank the editor and Reviewer 1 for this observation, which pushed me to clarify a premise I had otherwise left implicit. Following their request and Reviewer 1's comment on whether an advocacy-driven journalist can still be considered a journalist, I have added a paragraph to the Introduction addressing this "neutral” mainstream journalism is itself already shaped by structural interests. I chose not to frame this as defending anti-speciesist journalists as “real journalists” rather than activists, since several participants self-identify as activists. Instead, following Harcup (2005), I framed activist-journalism as a legitimate professional category in its own right, one that does not require choosing between the two identities, which I believe reflects my participants accurately.

• The journal can reconfigure Table 1 to make it easier for readers to follow in terms of how it is formatted.

I thank the editor and both reviewers for their comments on the presentation of the results. I have divided the original single table into four independent tables, one per strategy category. Each table now has its own caption, header row, and source note for improved readability. The in-text reference to the table was updated accordingly.

• Dana is mentioned several times, and some readers won’t recognize the context, so find some way to briefly explain that upon first mention.

Thank you for this observation. "Dana” is now clarified on first mention, as suggested.

• For “5.3.2. Integrating Animal and Human Narratives Without Comparison,” add a bit more explanation so we can distinguish between journalists using a kind of frame extension to bring nonhuman animal issues in with human struggles vs when the journalists are trying to show that nonhuman animal issues are equally important on their own. The latter sounds like they are not necessarily including the human struggles in those stories, but I think you are saying they still do include human issues but somehow show the nonhuman issues too in a way that gives them equal weight (presumably avoiding an anthropocentric angle on those nonhuman stories). Perhaps another example would help here if these two are going to be put into one strategy. Like what are the various ways that a journalist could report on wild animals or companion animals affected by big storms that are also affecting humans?  I think I might be conflating this strategy with the previous “cross issues framing approach.”

Yes, thank you. I have added a short clarifying passage distinguishing the two moves (frame extension vs. non-comparative equal weighting), with the example suggested by the reviewer.

• Something else you could add to the future directions is a comparison of antispeciesist journalism strategies with that of other counter-hegemonic movements, like for LGBTQ+ rights or feminism or racial justice. What lessons from those social movements could be applied to help anti-speciesist journalists navigate the hegemony of the current profession? Or in what ways does the nonhuman animal issue deviate and require some special approaches (given that it is outside of the human realm)?

Thanks for this good idea. I have added this suggested comparative avenue to Section 8 (Limitations and Directions for Future Research).

• Excellent study – well written and very useful insights.

Thank you for your generous and constructive feedback. Thanks to your comments, I believe this is now a much-improved manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to congratulate the author(s) for their/her/his research and contribution, for the clear writing and presentation of the results, and for the transparency. I do not identify any areas of weakness that should be fixed or methodological inaccuracies. However, I have some comments that the author(s) could take into consideration:

1. The current format of the table sometimes makes it difficult to read and understand the results. I understand that it is not something that can be changed, as it probably follows the journal's guidelines. Even so, I wonder if the results could be visually presented with another format (as figures) or divided into different tables (for example, making one table for each category, or flipping the axis so that each strategy reads vertically and compares horizontally).
2. Connected to the presentation of the results, I consider that any information regarding the frequency of use/mention of each strategy could illuminate the relative presence of each in the journalistic practice of the interviewees, as well as the overlapping between them. It could be very interesting to see these relations, but this data might not be relevant or available because of the methodology.
3. I recommend changing the keyword of posthumanism. There should be a more appropriate keyword that connects to the professional and/or advocacy dimension of anti-speciesist journalists specifically, specially since posthumanism has not been mentioned throughout the paper and does not seem relevant to this study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Below, I address each of your comments in turn, explaining the changes made in response.

1. The current format of the table sometimes makes it difficult to read and understand the results. I understand that it is not something that can be changed, as it probably follows the journal's guidelines. Even so, I wonder if the results could be visually presented with another format (as figures) or divided into different tables (for example, making one table for each category, or flipping the axis so that each strategy reads vertically and compares horizontally).

I thank the editor and both reviewers for their comments on the presentation of the results. Following the editor's request and Reviewer 2's specific suggestion, I have divided the original single table into four independent tables, one per strategy category. Each table now has its own caption, header row, and source note for improved readability. The in-text reference to the table was updated accordingly.

2. Connected to the presentation of the results, I consider that any information regarding the frequency of use/mention of each strategy could illuminate the relative presence of each in the journalistic practice of the interviewees, as well as the overlapping between them. It could be very interesting to see these relations, but this data might not be relevant or available because of the methodology.

I appreciate this suggestion, and agree it could add valuable insight. However, as the reviewer anticipates, this falls outside the scope of the study's methodology: reflexive thematic analysis with a small purposive sample was designed to capture the range and nature of strategies rather than their relative prevalence, and I have been cautious throughout not to overstate generalizability. I have therefore not added frequency data, but note this as a possible direction for a larger-scale follow-up study.

2. I recommend changing the keyword of posthumanism. There should be a more appropriate keyword that connects to the professional and/or advocacy dimension of anti-speciesist journalists specifically, specially since posthumanism has not been mentioned throughout the paper and does not seem relevant to this study.

Thank you! I have replaced “posthumanism” with “advocacy journalism,” which better reflects that dimension of anti-speciesist journalists.

Thank you for your generous and constructive feedback. Thanks to your comments, I believe this is now a much-improved manuscript.