Digital comment sections in news media are often dismissed as spaces of toxicity, disinformation, and polarization. However, beyond these reductionist perspectives, they serve as critical sites of rupture, where publics negotiate legitimacy, contest dominant narratives, and engage in alternative meaning-making processes. In French-speaking Quebec, a historical linguistic minority within predominantly Anglo-dominated digital infrastructures, these tensions are further shaped by questions of algorithmic visibility, media representation, and the evolving role of minority-language publics in platformed spaces.

This paper draws on a multi-platform ethnographic analysis of comment sections in leading Quebecois news outlets (Le Devoir, La Presse, Radio-Canada), engaging with critical platform studies (Gillespie, 2018; van Dijck, 2021) and epistemic justice frameworks (Fricker, 2007; Medina, 2013) to examine how platform affordances, moderation policies, and media governance structure public discourse. We explore three interrelated ruptures: sociotechnical ruptures, as algorithmic moderation amplifies certain voices while silencing others (Wright, 2016; Klonick, 2018); epistemic ruptures, as comment sections challenge journalistic authority and destabilize traditional hierarchies of knowledge (Pasquier, 2019; Altay et al., 2023); and political ruptures, as these spaces become arenas of both participatory critique and reactionary backlash (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2015; Rieffel, 2022).

Our findings highlight the ambivalence of digital publics: while comment sections can reinforce platformed asymmetries, they also serve as counter-hegemonic spaces where Quebecois users critically renegotiate media legitimacy. This study contributes to Internet Studies by situating these ruptures within broader debates on platformization, digital governance, and minority-language publics in an era of informational crisis.

This study investigates how realism and truth are negotiated across platforms in reality television through paratextual exchanges. Focusing on "Love is Blind" Season 6, the research examines television content alongside 248 social media posts to trace how narratives flow between television and social media. The analysis maps four distinct patterns in how narratives circulate between platforms, identified through their point of origin, trajectories of circulation, and treatment at the reunion.

From these narrative flows emerged dimensions of realism negotiation: truthfulness (collective verification of factual accuracy), strategic ambiguity (production's controlled equivocation), authenticity (alignment between inner experience and presentation), and realness (acknowledged construction with convincing performance). These flows demonstrate various power dynamics that ultimately mark some "realities" and truth claims as more valuable and visible than others.

Despite the prominence of "post-truth" discourse, findings demonstrate that all key actors remain invested in establishing various forms of realism, with different stakeholders wielding influence depending on the narrative trajectory. Production and audience collaborate and amplify one another in negotiations over truthfulness, production manipulates participants and audiences through strategic ambiguity, audiences and participants challenge production through debates about authenticity, and they ponder realness independently from production.

This research offers insights into contemporary truth-making processes and a methodological tool for examining transmedia storytelling. This approach puts into practice a theme marking contemporary media studies, namely the convergence between producers, audiences, media, and texts, across platforms.

This study examines the narratives constructed by partisan cable news outlets—CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News—in their coverage of the 2022 repeal of Roe v. Wade. Using a thematic analysis, the study identifies and analyzes recurring themes, storytelling elements, and moral evaluations that shaped these outlets’ portrayals of identity groups such as women, children, Republicans, and Democrats. The analysis explores how narratives were strategically deployed to align with each outlet’s ideological stance, offering insight into how media frames contentious social issues to reinforce partisan perspectives.

The findings reveal distinct narrative patterns across outlets. CNN and MSNBC emphasized themes of bodily autonomy and healthcare, portraying women as central victims of restrictive abortion policies. These outlets framed abortion as a critical aspect of women’s rights, often highlighting the societal harms caused by the repeal. Fox News, in contrast, emphasized moral evaluations and traditional values, portraying Republicans as protectors of unborn children and casting Democrats as moral adversaries. This outlet frequently used narratives centering on the sanctity of life, aligning with a broader conservative agenda.

Through its focus on storytelling elements such as characterization, plot development, and thematic cues, the study demonstrates how partisan media constructs narratives to engage audiences and influence public discourse. These findings contribute to the sociological understanding of how media narratives shape collective identities, reinforce ideological divides, and frame debates on contentious societal issues. This research underscores the critical role of storytelling in contemporary media ecosystems and highlights the need for further exploration of its sociopolitical implications.