Our recent Better Together workshop brought forward a set of concerns that feel immediate, but are in fact part of a longer and deeper pattern shaping civic life in Leicester. Participants reflected on the pressures facing local communities, from the monetisation of outrage on social platforms to the decline of local journalism, from weak digital literacy to the lack of spaces where people can meet across differences without those differences becoming points of conflict. These are not isolated issues. They are interconnected symptoms of a changing media and civic environment that is struggling to sustain shared forms of public discussion.
These questions take on added significance in light of the violence that took place in Leicester in 2022, and the subsequent analysis offered by the recent SOAS report. That report highlights how a combination of online misinformation, transnational narratives, weak local mediation structures, and a breakdown in trusted communication channels contributed to a rapid escalation of tensions. What emerges is not simply a story of local disorder, but a warning about the fragility of civic communication when it is not actively maintained and supported.
The Better Together discussion aligns closely with this diagnosis. Participants noted that many people now encounter information in fragmented and emotionally charged forms, often without the tools or confidence to assess its credibility. At the same time, local institutions are not always equipped to respond quickly or effectively when tensions begin to build. This creates a gap between lived experience and institutional awareness, where misunderstandings can grow unchecked. In such conditions, the absence of trusted, place-based forums for discussion becomes a critical weakness.
This raises a fundamental question. If public discussion is essential to civic life, why do we not have a clearer and more widely agreed set of principles that support it? The idea of shared forums for dialogue is not new. It predates modern media systems by thousands of years. What is new is the complexity of the current media environment, where global platforms, local identities, and algorithmic incentives interact in ways that can amplify division rather than understanding. The challenge, therefore, is not to invent the idea of public discussion, but to restate and secure the conditions under which it can function in contemporary settings like Leicester.
At a minimum, this requires a commitment to openness, accountability, plural representation, and the ability to encounter disagreement without immediate escalation. It requires media systems that do more than distribute content, but which actively support interpretation, context, and dialogue. It also requires recognition that public discussion cannot be sustained by large-scale institutions alone. It depends on smaller, locally grounded forms of media and communication that are closer to everyday experience and capable of building trust over time.
Leicester provides a clear example of why this matters. The city has long been recognised for its diversity and its capacity for coexistence across different communities. But that coexistence cannot be taken for granted. It relies on ongoing processes of communication, negotiation and mutual recognition. When those processes are weakened, whether by the decline of local journalism, the fragmentation of digital communication, or the absence of shared civic spaces, the risks become evident.
This is where the wider debate about media reform becomes directly relevant. A system of public purpose media cannot be defined solely by national institutions or legacy broadcasters. It must be understood as a broader civic ecology, one that includes local, community and participatory media alongside larger organisations. Each plays a different role. Large-scale media can provide reach and resources. Local and community media can provide proximity, trust and responsiveness. Without this balance, the system as a whole becomes less resilient.
The recent response from GB News to Ofcom’s Plan of Work, while coming from a particular institutional perspective, highlights an issue that cannot be ignored. It raises questions about plurality, regulation, and the concentration of influence within a small number of dominant organisations. These questions should not be reduced to commercial competition alone. They point to a deeper concern about how the public sphere is structured, and who is able to participate in shaping it.
In this context, the idea of a “Loyalty Exit Option” becomes significant. A healthy media system should not require individuals to align themselves with a single institution or a fixed set of assumptions about public service. People should be able to engage with public purpose media in ways that reflect their own perspectives, while still participating in a shared civic conversation. This is not about undermining established institutions, but about ensuring that they remain accountable, open and responsive within a plural system.
At the same time, plurality cannot mean fragmentation without connection. The need for shared spaces remains. The workshop highlighted the importance of secular civic spaces in which no single identity, belief system or narrative is privileged over others. These are spaces where heterogenous views can be expressed, challenged and developed without collapsing into antagonism. In a city like Leicester, such spaces are not optional. They are essential to maintaining the everyday practices of coexistence.
The implications of this are practical. It suggests that media reform must be linked to wider questions of civic infrastructure. It suggests that digital literacy should be treated as a common good, not an individual responsibility. It suggests that local forums for discussion, whether mediated through journalism, community media, or civic institutions, need sustained support. And it suggests that the relationship between national media narratives and local lived experience needs to be more carefully managed.
The Better Together workshop does not offer a finished solution to these challenges. What it offers is something more useful. It provides a space in which these issues can be recognised, named and explored collectively. That in itself is a necessary step. Without such spaces, the conditions that led to the events of 2022 are more likely to recur, rather than to be understood and addressed.
Thanks are due to Shumaila Jaffrey for her support in helping to convene and sustain this discussion. The question now is whether there is a willingness to continue. If there is interest in further sessions, or in contributing to the development of this work, it would be useful to hear from those who see value in building a more sustained programme of dialogue and engagement in Leicester.