The purpose of this study is to investigate the role and practices of journalism in moderating comment sections on social media. The study addresses the following questions: How do journalists determine which comments to delete and which to keep in the comment section? Why does journalism engage in moderation? What problems and solutions exist? And how do approaches differ between private news media and public service in regulating comment sections? The study is conducted using qualitative interviews as a method, based on six interviews with journalists from both private news media and public service. We have thematically analyzed the empirical material using analytical tools from discourse psychology, dividing it into three prominent interpretive repertoires. These are the journalist's democratic dilemma, the journalist's role as a content moderator, and the journalist as a protector. The analysis is supported by theory and previous research on the journalist's role in society, the changing role of journalism, the journalist's role as a content moderator, and journalism and participation. The results of the study show that all participating journalists had an editorial policy to rely on. Although the journalists reflected on the democratic factor and the public's right to freedom of speech, they felt they could moderate the comment sections as long as it was supported by their policy. All interviewees believe that moderating the comment sections is necessary to find a balance between allowing freedom of speech and democracy to flow while preventing the comment sections from being overwhelmed by hate and threats. Something they found necessary to maintain their legitimacy. Additionally, they wanted to protect their news subjects so that the public would dare to participate in the news without fear of facing hateful comments. Furthermore, it emerged that the journalists we interviewed who work for private news media were more relaxed about moderating the comment sections and removing comments. The interviewees who worked for public service were more cautious and wanted full support from the policy before removing comments.