Reviewer's report
Title:Media coverage and awareness of violence against women in India: a
review of the December16, 2012 New Delhi gang-rape
Version:1Date:10 October 2014
Reviewer: Anindita DasGupta
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
General Statement: The manuscript entitled “Media coverage and awareness of
violence against women in India: a review of the December 16, 2012 New Delhi
gang-rape” presents interesting and compelling information regarding one of the
most influential and high-profile sexual assaults in India’s history. The
manuscript’s major strength comes from the authors documenting the visual
spread and transfer of information between December 16, 2012 and January 7,
2013. Mapping the trends in data peaks in reporting was also an innovative
method of analysis of the data collected. However, the express purpose of
undertaking the analysis within the larger picture of this work was not clear, and
the methods and results did not map onto the described purpose in a cohesive
manner. This manuscript presents many interesting findings and it is essential
that such thoughtful analyses on this pivotal moment in India’s history be shared.
However, the manuscript requires a bit of refocusing and restructuring in order
for it to serve as a novel contribution to the existing literature. Specific
recommendations follow:
1. This manuscript states that “the objective of this systematic review of
professional media sources is to inform and visually represent media’s role in
spread of the information from a local to a global scale, using the December 16,
2012 gang-rape in Delhi as a case example.” However, the information in the
introduction does not give enough context to explain why understanding how
information spreads after a rape is important, or why the case in India was of
such interest (the authors do mention that subsequent protests in response to the
rape were focused on changing “the current state of the treatment of women in
India,” however that is not enough context to understand why this really resulted
in such a huge backlash). The paragraph starting on line 98 begins to set up the
relevance of the analyses, but falls short by simply stating that “It is important to
understand how the spread of media information affects social movements after
a rape event within the local and global population,” without explaining why this is
important. The authors could have talked about how increased reporting in the
media of rapes has sometimes been tied to increase in women reporting assaults
to police; that growing media attention may attract attention from governments
(nationally and internationally), and that this could lead to changes in legislation
(as it eventually did in India as a result of this rape case). The authors could pull
from the literature on media and advocacy for language around how media
influences advocacy efforts, and can therefore impact health through changes in
policies to protect women. Without this angle, the paper does not seem to be a
good fit for a women’s health journal. While the authors begin to talk about some
of the contextual factors involved in the discussion, I felt that there should have
been greater discussion on how the social movement around this rape event was
wrapped in the media frenzy. While it was out of the scope of the timeline
included in these analyses, it would have also made sense to comment on the
point that the social movement is still going strong in India, and that the media
coverage is still substantially higher on not just this one case, but on sexual
assault in general in India now (ex. the rape and hanging of the girls in UP). It
also seems that mentioning the case of Mathura in 1972 could be a useful point
of context, as it was also considered a pivotal case for India where protestors
lined the streets, while national media began heavy coverage once the case was
reopened in 1980. All of these points are aimed at helping the authors provide
greater context for the purpose of the analyses presented in this manuscript.
2. Methodology – reasoning for selected inclusion and exclusion criteria is not
clear based on the existing introduction. For example, the point of exclusion
around details of the trial/court case (line 129) seems arbitrary as based on a
cursory understanding of this subject and the description in the introduction of the
situation, it was not clear why such stories would be excluded. The same goes
for including only English-language only stories. Though, the authors mention
this later as a limitation, it would have been useful in the methods section to
understand why this made sense (eg. the authors were most interested in
understanding how information was transferred within and across countries, and
given the many dialects in India, and general use of English language for most
media sources, this made sense).
3. Methodology – while there have not been any published articles using the
exact methodology used in these analyses, it is clear that the analyses
conducted were based on components of methodology used in systematic
literature reviews, as well as in qualitative data analysis. In addition, on lines
162-163, the authors mention that the reviewers used a form from a “previously
piloted data abstract form.” It is not clear in what context this form was used, so it
is difficult to understand if this method of data abstraction documentation was
appropriate for these analyses. These methods should be cited or referenced in
some capacity; without such references, it is difficult to assess the validity of the
basic data collection (searching) and analysis (coding). This is especially
important given the poor inter-rater reliability scores.
4. Methodology – The first line of the search strategy section (line 152) is
confusing. It is not clear what “Two reviewers piloted a preliminary electronic
search” entails. Does that mean the reviewers created a list of search terms and
then tested those out?
5. Methodology – While it was admirable that the authors included pieces to
explain their efforts to understand reporter bias (Lines 162-174), for the purposes
of this review, this does not feel relevant (at least not how the manuscript is
currently structured). I would have been more interested in understanding if the
reviewers themselves had biases (as is often disclosed in qualitative data
analysis research).
6. Discussion – The discussion could have provided more of a tie into how the
results of these analyses impact women’s health; what the rapid spread of
information means in this day and age, and how that might be useful for women
in terms of intervention.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. It would be helpful if the authors provided greater details for those who may
not be as familiar with India and this case. For example – line 133 “…regarding
the trial and court case due to the unusual and unique events that occurred
during the trial…”. This reference to “unusual and unique events” is not clear.
2. It was a bit confusing to understand if the authors were referring to the victim’s
boyfriend who was with her on the evening of the incident throughout the article,
as there were also references to the victim’s friend. Just a note to check for
clarity on those references throughout the paper.
Discretionary Revisions
1. I thought the use of the visual map to depict the transfer of information was
one of the most innovative pieces of this manuscript. The analyses conducted
and described in this manuscript would provide an excellent starting point of
discussion to understand how media can spread in relation to violence on a
global level. I really feel that this piece of the paper could be highlighted more.
2. There may not be space for this but it might also be helpful for outsiders to
understand how media works in India relative to the rest of the world (i.e. lots of
news outlets, paparazzi and sensational attitudes at times). There were many
points when the authors were describing the results, that it felt like they were
teasing to some of these points. For those who do not have a deep
understanding of India, this could be difficult to understand.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests below.