Somewhere in the last few years, comments on social media evolved into their own content format. And I’ll admit: I have a complicated relationship with them. 

I love comments when I genuinely don’t understand a cryptic TikTok and need someone in the replies to explain it. I love them when I’m looking for tips on a recipe, or when I need confirmation that I’m not the only one thinking exactly what I’m thinking. 

What I love a lot less: comments that function as amplifiers for hate, where strangers work each other into a frenzy from behind their keyboards.

Lessons from creators

For news creators and creator journalists, comments are a core part of the job. I know this from my own experience as a creator journalist. That’s where the community gathers. Where different perspectives — ideally respectful ones — get aired. It’s the comment section that makes users feel:

I am being heard here.

At legacy media, that’s rarely the case. Too often, comment sections are treated like a nice-to-have engagement playground. Something to have but not something to tend. 

Think of it like dropping your kid off at the IKEA play area — mostly fine until the announcement comes over the intercom: Lilly would like to be picked up now.

In media terms: We have a shitstorm in the comments. Oops.

Legacy media wonder why their users don’t feel like part of a community, but they often don’t see themselves as part of one either. If they did, they’d invest in the comments. 

That means work. It means building a system that is, at a certain point, genuinely difficult to automate. Yes, you can use AI for filtering and moderation. But the whole point is users want to connect with the journalists, not with a bot.

It’s about human exchange. And funnily enough, that’s exactly where you could redirect some of the money you’re saving through automation elsewhere.

What the research shows

IN/LAB, the innovation lab owned by Schibsted and focused on inclusion in news media, just published a report on how young people in Sweden relate to news creators. 

Three findings stood out to me.

1. Trusted creators are authentic, consistent, and transparent.

Young people trust creators who show up as themselves: same voice, same values, same willingness to correct mistakes openly. This isn’t just a creator thing. It’s a trust architecture. And it works in comment sections, too: A journalist who shows up in the replies, answers honestly, and admits when something’s unclear is doing exactly what trusted creators do. The Toronto Star pilot proved this: Readers didn’t come to tear journalists apart. They came to talk.

2. Creators and news media play different but complementary roles.

According to the IN/LAB report, young people use creators for discovery and sense-making, and news media for verification and depth. They move between the two, naturally, fluidly. This should be less threatening and more instructive: The question isn’t how to compete with creators but how to show up at the moments where institutional journalism actually adds something. 

3. Co-created news content felt more relevant and credible.

When IN/LAB ran a co-creation experiment with young people, journalists, and creators, test groups responded more positively to content where the journalistic process was visible, where sources appeared on camera, where the collaboration was acknowledged. Transparency about how something was made increased both relevance and trust. Sound familiar? Loureiro’s team at the Toronto Star built exactly this: journalists showing their work, live, in the comments, in real time.

If you’d like to subscribe to my bi-weekly newsletter, INMA members can do so here.

Banner photo: Adobe Stock by vegefox.com.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .