From Institution-First to Citizen-First – Better Media’s Priorities for UK Media Reform
Better Media’s response to the government’s Watch This Space consultation starts from a simple proposition: the future of UK media should not be designed solely around the preservation of established institutions. It should be built around the information, cultural and democratic capabilities that citizens and communities need.
The submission welcomes the consultation’s recognition that technological change is transforming television and media. However, it argues that the debate remains too narrowly focused on established broadcasters, major publishers and technology platforms. Between these large institutions and individual audiences lies a vital but frequently overlooked ecology of community broadcasters, independent producers, hyperlocal publications, co-operatives, freelancers, minority-language services, civic organisations and small commercial providers.
These organisations do more than create content. They sustain relationships, provide locally relevant information, develop skills, open opportunities for participation and enable communities to represent themselves. A credible media strategy must therefore diversify supply, restrain protectionism and support innovation without sacrificing editorial independence, universal access or citizen choice.
Media as Foundational Civic Infrastructure
Better Media describes this wider field as Foundational Media: the locally rooted information, scrutiny, representation and participation on which everyday civic life depends.
This is not a proposal to turn every media service into a public utility, nor to place journalism under government direction. It is a way of recognising that people need trustworthy and relevant information to understand decisions, scrutinise power, find practical support and participate in public life.
The foundational approach focuses on capabilities rather than institutional prestige. It asks whether people can find out what is happening where they live, hear a meaningful range of perspectives, challenge inaccurate claims and contribute to the media that represent them.
Public, commercial, charitable, co-operative, community and independent services can all contribute. What matters is whether their practices are accountable, their editorial decisions are independent and the public benefits they claim can be demonstrated.
Diversifying Supply and Restraining Protectionism
A central concern in the submission is that media policy continues to reflect an era in which production and distribution were scarce, expensive and necessarily concentrated.
Production technology has changed considerably. High-quality audio, video and digital publishing can now be undertaken by individuals and small distributed teams using portable equipment, networked collaboration and accessible software. Yet commissioning systems, funding rules, regulatory categories and distribution agreements often remain designed for large organisations with specialist compliance teams and established institutional relationships.
This creates avoidable barriers. Small providers may be capable of producing valuable work but unable to enter closed commissioning frameworks, meet disproportionate administrative requirements or obtain access to audiences and data.
Better Media therefore calls on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Ofcom to examine protectionism across the whole media supply chain. The relevant test is not whether established organisations retain their existing positions, but whether capable new providers can enter, understand the rules, obtain finance, retain reasonable intellectual-property rights, reach audiences and challenge exclusionary decisions at a proportionate cost.
This is not an argument for deregulation without safeguards. Serious harms still require effective remedies. The case is for proportionate and incentive-led regulation: accessible guidance, simple entry routes, regulatory sandboxes, time-limited trials and tangible benefits for providers that adopt accountable practices.
Distributionism, Not Simply Regionalisation
The submission distinguishes distributionism from the relocation of large institutions.
Moving a major production centre outside London may redistribute employment geographically, but it does not necessarily distribute ownership, intellectual property, commissioning authority or decision-making. A large regional hub can remain highly centralised.
A distributionist approach spreads productive capacity across communities. It supports shared equipment, portable studios, small procurement lots, local commissioning, skills development and the retention of rights and revenue by smaller producers. It asks whether people in a place can initiate and sustain media activity, rather than merely supply labour to a distant institutional centre.
Projects within the Better Media ecology illustrate different parts of this argument. The Evington Echo demonstrates the value of locally stewarded publishing and the need for gradual, reversible innovation. Soar Sound illustrates how modest capacity support can develop volunteers, locally rooted programming and civic relationships. Decentered Media’s work explores how participatory communication and bounded experimentation can connect technological innovation with editorial and governance safeguards.
These are practical illustrations, not claims to represent every community. Their value lies in showing how general principles operate at a human scale.
Rebuilding the Meaning of Local Media
“Local” must also be more precisely defined.
Ofcom has sector-specific definitions of local material in areas such as analogue commercial radio, but the UK lacks a coherent cross-media definition capable of supporting local broadcasting, online provision, civic media and future prominence arrangements. Treating local media as anything that is not national is too imprecise.
A workable definition should consider a specified place or community, continuing editorial presence, accountable coverage, relationships with people who live or work there, and evidence that value, skills or decision-making are retained locally. Networked or remote production should not be excluded where these substantive tests are met.
The experience of BBC Local Radio and community radio also deserves attention. Better Media members report that the two sectors seldom meet, exchange referrals or undertake joint training systematically. At the same time, increased regionalisation within BBC Local Radio in England has narrowed the space available for place-based and community-first programming.
If the BBC reduces or relinquishes parts of its local role, community, civic and independent providers are willing to step in. They need fair access to resources, audiences and commissioning opportunities rather than being treated merely as feeders into larger institutions.
Prominence Must Come with Citizen Choice
The consultation considers whether trustworthy news and public-service content should be made more prominent on digital platforms. Better Media recognises that prominence may address genuine discoverability problems, but warns that it can also consolidate institutional power.
No organisation should receive permanent visibility simply because of its existing status. Eligibility should be based on transparent practice, including correction processes, ownership and funding disclosure, accessibility, complaints procedures and accountable editorial decision-making.
Prominence, subsidy and market protection should operate as a social-value exchange. Providers receiving an advantage should accept clear, measurable and independently assessed public-purpose obligations. They must not be permitted to “mark their own homework”.
Most importantly, citizens must always be able to opt out. People should be able to switch prominence or prioritisation off without degraded service, hidden penalties or repeated prompts. They should be told why content is being promoted and be offered chronological, unranked or otherwise non-personalised alternatives.
Public-Purpose Media and Editorial Independence
Better Media proposes that the future settlement should be described as Public-Purpose Media, rather than being tied exclusively to a fixed category of public-service institutions.
A public-purpose model would allow different kinds of provider to qualify where they meet proportionate obligations and contribute to outcomes such as accurate civic information, participation, accessibility, media literacy, cultural expression and local accountability.
Editorial independence must remain non-negotiable. Government may establish frameworks and social outcomes, but it should not determine which editorial positions deserve support. Funding, recognition, appointments and platform agreements should operate at arm’s length, with published criteria, declarations of interest, reasoned decisions and independent appeals.
Parliament and ministers should receive aggregate reports on performance and outcomes, while operational and editorial decisions remain protected from political direction.
Media Literacy as Participation
The submission also challenges a narrow understanding of media literacy as teaching audiences how to recognise misinformation produced elsewhere.
People develop stronger critical capabilities when they can make, verify, discuss and correct media themselves. Community media, libraries, schools, youth organisations and civil-society groups should therefore be equal participants in media-literacy provision.
Participation gives people practical experience of evidence, consent, correction, editorial judgement and accountability. It also creates relationships across communities, helping shared civic spaces to develop without requiring cultural uniformity.
Concerns about polarisation and segregation should be examined carefully, without assuming that culturally specific media cause division. Targeted services may provide essential language, confidence and representation. The wider policy question is whether the whole media system also supports bridging relationships, shared information and encounters across communities.
A Reversible and Evidence-Led Transition
Better Media argues that any transition from digital terrestrial television to internet-delivered television must be evidence-led rather than governed by an arbitrary date.
Coverage figures alone do not establish affordability, accessibility, indoor connectivity, digital confidence, emergency resilience or the availability of suitable equipment and support. Any transition must include clear readiness tests, independent evaluation and the ability to postpone or adapt plans where people would lose an equivalent service.
The process must also avoid transferring gatekeeping power from broadcast infrastructure to a small number of proprietary platforms. Open standards, interoperable devices, fair carriage, net neutrality and transparent recommendation systems should be secured before any irreversible change.
From Consultation to Accountable Action
Better Media recommends a time-limited, independently chaired Civic and Foundational Media Forum. Its purpose would be to gather evidence, test proposals and convert participation into accountable recommendations rather than simply creating another permanent representative body.
Membership should be selected openly and include community, civic, independent, co-operative, minority-language and locally rooted media. The forum should publish its evidence, minutes, recommendations, dissenting views and the responses received from government, Ofcom and the wider sector.
The absence of comments through the existing Better Media Forum should not be treated as evidence of consensus or endorsement. Future engagement must be designed to reach people and organisations that are frequently absent from national policy discussions, with practical support for participation where necessary.
Building a Citizen-First Media Ecology
The guiding principle throughout the Better Media response is that technological change should widen civic capability, not simply replace one concentrated system with another.
A healthy media ecology is plural, distributed, innovative and accountable. It protects universal access and editorial independence while giving citizens meaningful control over what they receive and genuine opportunities to participate in what is produced.
The future of media should therefore be judged not only by the survival of familiar organisations or the sophistication of new platforms. It should be judged by whether people and communities have the information, skills, choices and productive capacity needed to participate fully in civic life.
“`