In a media environment saturated with soundbites and shorthand, it has become all too common for journalists and public commentators to lean on the term community as a way of signalling inclusion, unity, or shared interest. Yet, far from aiding understanding, this overused and vague term often does more harm than good. As advocates for ethical, respectful, and socially valuable media, we at Decentered Media believe it is time to re-evaluate this habit—and to start being much more precise in how we talk about people in public life.
The problem with community lies in its imprecision. When a news report refers to the LGBTQ+ community or the Muslim community, it implies that all people who might be included under that heading think, live, and experience the world in the same way. This is rarely true. People differ in how they identify, what they believe, how they relate to others, and how they engage with public issues. The term community too easily glosses over these differences, replacing complexity with a simplified narrative of consensus and cohesion.
In practice, this can distort how we understand social needs, political developments, and lived experiences. It risks silencing minority voices within groups, reinforcing gatekeeping by self-appointed spokespersons, and masking tensions or injustices that deserve serious attention. It also undermines the credibility of journalism itself, which ought to be rooted in accurate, evidence-based reporting that respects the diversity of experience.
As a result, we urge journalists, editors, and content producers—especially those working in the field of community media—to be more deliberate in how they describe people and issues. Rather than defaulting to coverall terms, we encourage the use of specific, verifiable language that reflects who is actually being discussed and what they are experiencing. Say local residents of Somali heritage in Leicester, trans-identifying students in FE colleges, or working-class parents with mixed migration status—if that is who is involved. Be prepared to describe the boundaries of experience, identity, and perspective, even if it complicates the story. This is not about pedantry. It is about respect.
This principle is particularly vital in community and civic media, where our role is not to echo industrialised, homogenised news outputs, but to deepen public understanding by connecting journalism to the realities of people’s lives. That means resisting the temptation to paraphrase what power-holders or institutional representatives tell us without scrutiny. It means listening to a range of voices, especially those whose experiences are routinely marginalised or misrepresented. And it means avoiding generalisations that erase difference in the name of an imagined collective.
Accurate reporting demands more than just good intentions. It requires a commitment to clarity, specificity, and ethical care. If we are serious about serving the public good—if we want to produce journalism that informs, not misleads—then we must stop hiding behind the comfort of vague and empty terms.
Let us retire community as a catch-all phrase and start describing people as they really are: diverse, complex, situated, and deserving of a media landscape that sees and hears them clearly.