Yes. So they don't have comment sections or they have expensively moderated comment sections. Both are preferable to unmoderated comment sections. I thought this had been the norm in many countries for years now?
Note that newspaper sites are very different from any random "forum". They typically enjoy very special legal protections and in return have legal responsibilities with a responsible publisher.
This meant that they review "letters to the editor" and take responsibility for them before publishing. And of course they can't do that with the comment section under an article online. And the simple solution is: for these specific types of publishers, just skip having comments or moderate the comments like the paper content is moderated.
The reader's letters editor reads the letter, and decides whether to publish it. The paper takes responsibility.
The comments editor reads the comment, and decides whether to publish it. The website takes responsibility.
I really can't see the difference.
Now, if by "comments editor" you mean the person that wrote the comment and hit "comment" on the site, that is perfectly equivalent to the person sending the letter to the editor, but has 0% equivalence to the person deciding whether the letter will be published.
When you comment on a site, the mechanism goes your computer -> server -> other users. There is no obligation for the server to make it available to other users just because it accepted your request. And indeed, the vast vast vast majority of sites on the internet that accept user content (far more than 99.9%) engage in moderation - some before the fact (moderator must approve content before it is published to other users), some after the fact (moderator sometimes deletes content that was previously published).
I know! I wanted to emphasize the equivalence between a print letters editor and a comments moderator.
Obviously it's hard to unpublish a letter to the editor in a print organ (you could leave it out of the second edition, I guess). So print editors are forced to pre-moderate.
I once had a "letter to the editor" published. They cut an important chunk of my prose, and added a misleading headline. That was 30 years ago, and I've never written to an editor since.
When I used to moderate the comments section on a political site, I would edit, but very cautiously. Mainly, I would remove addresses and phone numbers of people being criticized in a comment, and removed completely most kinds of bigotry and prejudice, and most exhortations to criminal acts. This was an "open posting" site - very strongly anti-censorship - but we still got attacked regularly for moderating at all.
Facebook wasn't found liable - they were seen as public forum.
But the newspaper by deciding to include comments on the article was found liable.