This paper shows promise in the area of analysing the media's relationship with science communication, most specifically in the role of discussions about CCS in Germany, however both reviewers have identified several important gaps in this current paper that would need to be addressed before it can be published. Most notably the three key issues that were raised in the reviews are:
1- An issue with the framing of paper in the broader context of CCS and science journalism
2- A question of the transparency or clarity of the media selection and analysis methods used
3 - A need for specific analysis of the role of emotion in both the narrative of the paper and the analysis of the data.
The described alterations made in response to the reviewer comments by the author are welcome (particularly the increased use of specific references and a move to broaden the relevance of the paper for a non-German audience), but more needs to be done to answer the concerns of the reviewers in this case. Therefore we encourage the author to conduct major revisions to this paper and submit these for further consideration.

It is clear that this paper has greatly benefitted from the work done to answer the queries raised by the previous reviewers. In most part these changes have been sufficient change to enable publication, though reviewer two does raise some important points about science PR and has identified a couple of areas where small additional clarification is required - particularly in the case of the clarification of 'science communication vs science journalism' and on the role of science PR in university institutions. Therefore, provided you can add these required references and small additional changes and return it to me, then I would consider that sufficient for publication.

Thank you for your in depth responses to the reviewer's comments and I am pleased to see that most of them have been satisfactorily answered, however there is one key point that needs clarification before this paper can be published (as I think this is an issue of language and referencing I have listed it as technical correction only).

In response to reviewer two's query about the reported rise of efficacy of science PR in research institutions the literature, which is at odds with a statement made in your paper, you added the following line:

Pg4 Line 22
"In addition, while we have to take discussions about the importance of science communication and science PR as well as external contexts for science communication into account (as done by Murcott & Williams, 2012)."

Whilst your response to the reviewer comments seemed to answer the point, this sentence is confusing and does not address the issue as you did in your longer comments. Please re-structure and clarify your intent with this sentence.

Thank you for engaging so thoroughly with the peer review process, and for sharing your excellent work in this field. We are very happy to publish this paper subject to the following two conditions:

1. You make the technical correction that the editor has indicated, i.e. address the congruency of the sentence on p. 4, line 22 which begins "In addition, while we have to take..."

2. You carry out a detailed proofreading of the paper, as there are many spelling, grammar and punctuation issues that at times affect the readability of the paper.

Once these two issues have been addressed we will be very happy to publish this work in Geoscience Communication. Thank you again for your excellent work and for considering us as your journal of choice for the publication of this research.

Many Thanks,

Sam Illingworth
(Chief Executive Editor)