Review Reports - Media Narratives and the Construction of Meaning in Times of War: Evidence from the MeInWar Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses a topic of great interest in the field of journalism. It is very well structured with logical and coherent organization and clear, readable writing. The main objection of this reviewer is that the topic of considering the media as not only channels of information, but also agents of the social construction of reality, has been studied by many authors who are not included in the theoretical framework. The authors cite only three works: Innerarity, Hasebrink & Paus-Hasebrink, and Pinto et al. Therefore, even though the concept of framing appears frequently throughout the literature review, the manuscript’s authors do not include essential references for an article on this topic.

For example, on page 4 (lines 162–163), reference is made to Capati (2025), who asserts in his research that "the framing centered around three core functions: diagnosing the problem, attributing responsibility, and proposing solutions." These three "functions" are very similar to the frames proposed by Robert M. Entman, one of the main references in framing theory, who published his seminal article, "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm" in 1993. Elsewhere in the text, it is stated that "by narrating and framing events, the media do not simply transmit information, but actively participate in producing and stabilizing shared meanings. Through selective emphasis, language choices, and narrative structuring, media discourses contribute to the consolidation of specific interpretive frameworks, thereby influencing public opinion." This formulation focuses again on framing theory and the role of the media as constructors of reality. To enrich the theoretical basis of the manuscript, I’d suggest the authors consider the contributions of the following scholars: E. Goffman, G. Tuchman, C. H. De Vreese, H. A. Semetko & P. M. Valkenburg, and especially P. D'Angelo or D. Chong & J. N. Druckman.

The references could be expanded to include authors such as Karin Wahl-Jorgensen and Marin Pantti when it is suggested that media discourses may shift from informative frameworks to emotionally intensified narratives (lines 478-479). Additionally, a more complete overview could be provided of authors who have dealt with the concept of prosumer, such as George Richter, Nathan Jurgenson, and Alex Bruns, when it is introduced.

Regarding the title, I believe the MeInWar project is not well-known enough to be mentioned explicitly. When this project is referred to in the text, I would suggest expanding the information slightly with a brief explanation.

Two more corrections need to be made.

First, Sanusi (2025) is listed as the sole author, but the cited work was produced by a team of three. Additionally, the title of the journal must be corrected as it appears in the list.

"Badescu & Sum 2024" does not appear in the reference list.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comments and for the opportunity to improve the clarity of our manuscript

Comment 1:

Response 1:

We have strengthened the theoretical grounding of the discussion by explicitly situating it within the framing literature. We now refer to the foundational work of Goffman, as well as subsequent developments by Tuchman, Semetko and Valkenburg, and De Vreese. We have also incorporated references to D’Angelo and Chong and Druckman to better contextualise the role of media framing in shaping interpretations of public issues.

Comment 2:

Response: 2

In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion by incorporating references to the work of Karin Wahl-Jorgensen and Marin Pantti, whose research highlights the increasing relevance of emotional dynamics in contemporary journalism. This addition strengthens the theoretical grounding of our argument regarding the shift from primarily informative frameworks to more emotionally intensified media narratives.

Comment 3:

Additionally, a more complete overview could be provided of authors who have dealt with the concept of prosumer, such as George Richter, Nathan Jurgenson, and Alex Bruns, when it is introduced.

Response 3:

We have expanded the discussion of the prosumer concept by including its original formulation by Alvin Toffler, as well as subsequent developments by George Ritzer, Nathan Jurgenson, and Axel Bruns. These additions clarify the historical origins and contemporary evolution of the concept and strengthen the theoretical framing of the “citizen-prosumer” in the context of participatory social media practices.

Comment 4:

Response 4:

We included some information about the project.

Comment 5:

Two more corrections need to be made.

First, Sanusi (2025) is listed as the sole author, but the cited work was produced by a team of three. Additionally, the title of the journal must be corrected as it appears in the list.

Response 5: Has been corrected.

Comment 6:

"Badescu & Sum 2024" does not appear in the reference list.

Response 6:

It has been added.

Comment 7:

I believe it would be useful for authors to be aware of the content of
the paper "A Scathing Indictment: How European Opinion Leaders Framed
Putin's Aggression Against Ukraine,” which was published in July 2025 in
MDPI’s Journalism and Media. Apart from the fact that the topic is the
same—how the media constructs the European public's perception of the
war in Ukraine and its protagonists—knowledge of the theoretical
framework of this work would alleviate what I consider to be the
article's main shortcoming. Therefore, I suggest that the authors check
this work.

Response 7:

Following your recommendation, we have incorporated this reference into Section 3 ('The News in Times of Conflict'). We believe that integrating this theoretical framework has effectively addressed the previous shortcomings of the article, providing a more robust analysis of how elite discourses shape European perspectives on the war. The text has been updated to reflect these contributions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A very interesting and significant research. Minding the limitations of the online poll and target audience, a cross-methodology and deeper analysis within the project could indeed confirm the conclusions from this research which I would highly recommend and will be interested in reading. I have no specific suggestions for improvements.

The suggested manuscript addresses the construction of meaning through media narratives during the Russian-Ukrainian conflict which started back in 2022. The main emphasis in the research is on the digital channels and the role of the audience in amplifying the social representations related to the topic. The topic is significant and current, as more and more researchers aim to explore and explain the meaning management, as well as the war-related news' influence on the audience. The literature review puts the research in context, explaining the media, its ecosystem, and the young audiences. The views and results of both latest academic research and some of the most significant academics in the field of media and communications are observed and this lays a solid foundation for the conducted research. The research has a specific target group - people aged 18-38 in Portugal and event though the author(s) point out that it is not representative, it shows specific tendencies related to the vastly digital generations aimed as respondents. The main research method is an online survey with 222 respondents, as the main objectives and the analysis framework are accurately described. The methodological limitations are also explained by the author(s). The conclusions are consistent and in line with the main aim of the research and are based entirely on the analysis of the survey responses. Specific tendencies are outlined while reporting on the results, which also brings numerous topics for discussion suggested the author(s). Overall, the manuscript is raising significant topics in the fields of media and communications and is aimed at the journal's main focus - "Youth". It is written in a good academic style and proficiently in English language.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for your thorough and thoughtful review of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your positive feedback on the relevance and significance of our research, as well as your acknowledgment of the methodology, literature review, and clarity of the conclusions.

Your comments encouraging a cross-methodology and deeper analysis are very valuable, and we will certainly consider them in our future work to strengthen and expand the findings of this study. We are grateful for your recognition of the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s focus on youth and media studies.

Thank you once again for your time, constructive feedback, and support.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the article clearly states the objectives of the study, explicit research questions or hypotheses are not clearly formulated.
The theoretical background discusses several relevant studies on media narratives, misinformation, and conflict communication. The authors could more explicitly explain how the present research contributes to filling what is missing from consulted literature.
Although the discussion relates the results to the theoretical framework, parts of this section remain somewhat descriptive and occasionally reiterate the empirical results. The discussion could be strengthened by providing deeper analytical interpretation, comparing the findings more systematically with previous studies, and elaborating on the broader implications for media studies and youth communication practices.
The authors acknowledge several limitations (e.g., convenience sample, exploratory design), which is commendable. However, the implications of these limitations for the generalizability of the results could be discussed in more depth.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comments and for the opportunity to improve the clarity of our manuscript

Comment 1:

While the article clearly states the objectives of the study, explicit research questions or hypotheses are not clearly formulated.

Response 1:

In the revised version of the manuscript, we have explicitly formulated four Research Questions (RQ) to provide a clearer framework for the empirical analysis. These can now be found in Section 4 (Materials and Methods), immediately following the study's objectives.

We opted to focus on Research Questions rather than formal Hypotheses because this is an exploratory study based on a non-probabilistic convenience sample. According to methodological literature, research questions are more appropriate for mapping social representations and exploring patterns in this context, whereas hypotheses are typically reserved for predictive testing in explanatory or experimental designs.

Furthermore, we ensured that these Research Questions are consistently addressed throughout the Results section.

Comment 2:

The theoretical background discusses several relevant studies on media narratives, misinformation, and conflict communication. The authors could more explicitly explain how the present research contributes to filling what is missing from consulted literature.

Response 2: We have added a new paragraph at the end of the theoretical background (Section 3). This addition explicitly clarifies that while existing literature focuses heavily on media content and framing, our study fills a critical gap by focusing on the 'reception and digital circulation' side. Specifically, we highlight that this research moves beyond content analysis to explore how young audiences in the Portuguese context actively negotiate, interpret, and recirculate these narratives within their personal networks. This transition from 'message' to 'practice' is now clearly identified as the core contribution of our work.

Comment 3:

Although the discussion relates the results to the theoretical framework, parts of this section remain somewhat descriptive and occasionally reiterate the empirical results. The discussion could be strengthened by providing deeper analytical interpretation, comparing the findings more systematically with previous studies, and elaborating on the broader implications for media studies and youth communication practices

Response 3:

The Discussion section has been revised to strengthen its analytical depth and to reduce descriptive elements that reiterated the empirical results. In particular, we introduced additional interpretative paragraphs that more explicitly relate the findings to existing literature and theoretical perspectives already discussed in the article.

First, we expanded the comparison with previous research on media framing of conflicts and refugee representation (Ajana et al., 2024; Scardigno et al., 2024), in order to contextualise participants’ perceptions of sensationalism and declining media prominence within broader patterns identified in media studies.

Second, we further developed the implications of the findings for young audiences’ communicative practices in digital environments. This addition draws on the concept of mediated socialisation (Hasebrink & Paus-Hasebrink, 2013) to interpret how young users negotiate their engagement with conflict-related information across hybrid media ecosystems.

Finally, we included a concluding analytical paragraph in the Discussion that elaborates on the broader implications of the findings for media studies, emphasising the interaction between media narratives, framing processes (Goffman, 1974; Chong & Druckman, 2007), and audience interpretation in the construction of social representations of conflict.

Comment 4:

The authors acknowledge several limitations (e.g., convenience sample, exploratory design), which is commendable. However, the implications of these limitations for the generalizability of the results could be discussed in more depth.

Response 4:

The limitations section has been expanded to discuss more explicitly the implications of the convenience sample and exploratory design for the generalizability of the findings. The revised text clarifies that the results should be interpreted as indicative tendencies within a specific segment of the Portuguese population rather than as conclusions that can be generalized to the population as a whole.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After a second review, I conclude that the submitted paper has improved significantly. It now offers a more comprehensive theoretical framework that provides a solid foundation for the study presented. All suggestions from the initial review have been addressed.

However, I still feel that a reference to Robert Entman's seminal work on framing theory is missing.

I would also humbly suggest reconsidering the inclusion of the following sentence (lines 154-156) in the text: "The theoretical framework of this work offers a critical perspective on the media's role in constructing the European public's perception, alleviating common shortcomings in the analysis of how these narratives are structured at an elite level." It seems written just to respond to comment 7, using nearly the same words. However, in my opinion, the sentence does not fit in the text. Honestly, I think the final text is more coherent without it.

Otherwise, the following three minor corrections are suggested:

– If the authors add a reference in the text to the article "A Scathing Indictment: How European Opinion Leaders Framed Putin's Aggression Against Ukraine," it should appear in italics within the text.

– In the reference list, the name of the journal Lead City International of Library, Information & Communication Sciences should be italicized in its complete form, not just the last part.

– Some words are hyphenated incorrectly in lines 231-232.

Once these minor issues are solved, the manuscript is fit for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1:

However, I still feel that a reference to Robert Entman's seminal work on framing theory is missing.

Response 1:

We fully agree on the importance of Robert Entman’s seminal contribution to framing theory. Accordingly, we have revised the manuscript to incorporate a reference to Entman (1993) in the theoretical framework section. We believe this inclusion enhances the theoretical robustness and clarity of our discussion of media narratives.

Comment 2:

Response 2:

We agree and have eliminated the sentence.

Comment 3:

If the authors add a reference in the text to the article "A Scathing Indictment: How European Opinion Leaders Framed Putin's Aggression Against Ukraine," it should appear in italics within the text.

Response 3:

We agree and have revised.

Comment 4:

In the reference list, the name of the journal Lead City International of Library, Information & Communication Sciences should be italicized in its complete form, not just the last part.

Response 4:

We agree and have revised.

Comment 5:

Some words are hyphenated incorrectly in lines 231-232.

Response 5:

The incorrect hyphenation may have resulted from automatic formatting in the text layout. We have revised the paper.