Given the ferocity of discussion on social media, and the need for legacy media providers to remain relevant, would it be possible to reflect pragmatically on how civic conversations are shaped—or more worryingly, constrained—by dominant institutions? A recent episode of The State of Us podcast (Episode 3), featuring psychotherapist Stella O’Malley and journalist Ian O’Doherty, offers a sobering reminder of the pressures facing public discourse, particularly when it comes to issues as complex and contested as gender identity.
In their conversation, O’Malley and O’Doherty critique what they describe as a failure of the mainstream media to uphold basic principles of journalistic rigour and impartiality. Instead of open inquiry and the presentation of a range of perspectives, they argue that large media organisations have adopted a rigidly affirming stance on transgender topics—often driven more by ideological alignment and advocacy group influence than by a commitment to public service journalism.
O’Malley uses the term “regime media” to describe institutions that appear more interested in controlling narratives than reflecting a diversity of experiences and ideas. She questions why media outlets so often platform a single view, especially when significant numbers of professionals, parents, and detransitioners are calling for more caution, particularly around the treatment of children. Her position is not anti-trans but pro-discussion—a distinction that is routinely flattened or ignored in corporate media environments.
O’Doherty, meanwhile, reflects on the risks facing journalists who even attempt to explore these subjects with nuance. Accusations of transphobia can arise not from intent or evidence, but simply from posing critical questions. The result is a culture of self-censorship and fear, one where investigative journalism is replaced by affirmation and advocacy masquerading as objectivity.
The significance of this conversation lies not only in its content, but in its format. As podcasting and independent media continue to grow, they provide spaces where taboo topics and dissenting views can be explored with care, reflection, and accountability to audiences rather than advertisers or institutional agendas. These platforms offer a counterweight to the homogenised content of legacy outlets. They allow journalists and commentators to speak outside of the professional and ideological constraints that often govern mainstream newsrooms.
At Decentered Media, we advocate for a different media ecology—one grounded in civic engagement, community dialogue, and an honest reckoning with difficult issues. We believe that public media must not be captive to dominant ideological trends, whether commercial or institutional. Instead, we need spaces that make room for disagreement, complexity, and pluralism.
We must also continue to reflect on the urgency of investing in media platforms that offer space for these kinds of discussions to take place in an accountable and honest way. The recent public falling-out between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, proprietor of X, was swiftly framed by much of the press as a gladiatorial clash of personalities—as if media power were the exclusive domain of rival gods. The implications of this feud for freedom of expression, digital infrastructure, and public influence were largely sidelined. What should have been an opportunity to scrutinise the centralised ownership of communications systems and their civic consequences was instead reduced to spectacle.
This is emblematic of a wider malaise. As media ownership becomes more concentrated and algorithmic systems increasingly shape what we see and hear, the pluralistic role of the media is under threat. The capacity for citizens to understand, question, and shape the narratives that govern their lives is being eroded by technical and economic processes that separate media production from the people it is meant to serve.
If we are serious about media reform, we must also be serious about community media. But that commitment must go beyond nostalgia or sentimentality. If community media does not remodel itself to anticipate these shifts—by integrating digital innovation, championing pluralism, and grounding itself in local and civic value—it risks being sidelined altogether. A vibrant community media sector cannot afford to become an anachronism. It must instead become a counterweight: adaptive, reflexive, and rooted in democratic purpose.
O’Malley and O’Doherty’s discussion is part of a broader movement challenging the centralisation of media narratives and reclaiming the right to public conversation. Their criticisms may be uncomfortable, but that is often the point of honest journalism. If we are to build a media landscape that serves the public good, we must defend the right to speak, question, and listen—especially when it’s hard.
This is not about taking sides on ideological grounds. It is about reaffirming a foundational principle: that the purpose of the media is to serve people, not to instruct or coerce them.
If you’re committed to building civic, independent, and balanced media, we invite you to support Decentered Media. Let’s continue this discussion, and others like it, on our own terms—free from fear, with honesty at the core.