I’m fascinated by community-driven, decentralised media systems that serve as alternatives to corporate-controlled media. These systems emphasise social cohesion, cultural democracy, and democratic engagement. In a time when mainstream outlets can sometimes seem removed from the everyday experiences of many people—especially those dealing with class issues, addiction, and urban challenges—individuals like Billy Moore provide examples of participatory storytelling.
Through his YouTube channel, The All or Nothing Podcast with Billy Moore, Moore illustrates aspects of DIY citizen reporting, using social media to share stories from overlooked perspectives and encourage open dialogue. His work also prompts discussions about ethics, accountability, and the direction of news production in the UK. As concerns about misinformation and polarisation persist in eroding confidence in traditional media, Moore’s efforts offer a case study—and a potential lesson—for institutional providers considering adjustments to their practices.
Billy Moore is a British author and former prisoner whose memoir A Prayer Before Dawn was adapted into a 2017 film, has developed a platform that focuses on aspects of society often overlooked. His channel, with approximately 281,000 subscribers based on recent data, includes interviews and personal reflections on topics such as true crime, prison life, addiction recovery, and experiences on the streets.
Episodes cover subjects like time in Thai prisons or paths to recovery, drawing from Moore’s own history with addiction and incarceration to facilitate discussions. A notable feature of Moore’s work is its participatory element: he includes guests from varied backgrounds—such as former inmates, fighters, and those in recovery—to contribute to the content, creating a space that aligns with decentralised media initiatives where community members help shape the narrative.
An evaluation of Moore’s work highlights its role in supporting community voices and questioning established media approaches. His storytelling is described as informative and direct, addressing issues like homelessness and urban challenges that may receive limited attention in mainstream coverage.
Audiences value the straightforwardness, with feedback indicating that his method helps build understanding and highlights potential societal concerns, contributing to cultural democracy by broadening who participates in storytelling. Within the realm of social media influencing, Moore functions as an independent creator, utilising YouTube to reach viewers through interactions that appear candid and unedited. This form of DIY citizen reporting—conducted in public settings and engaging people directly—resembles blockchain-supported platforms like Substack, where individuals can connect without traditional intermediaries. His documentation of UK streets, including in Scotland, shows an interest in storytelling that connects different locales and encourages social connections without extensive production refinement.
Professional and institutional media organisations could benefit from examining Moore’s engagement methods. In contrast to approaches sometimes associated with middle-class perspectives—such as structured formats and emphasis on signalling certain values—Moore depends on personal interactions and relationships. He connects in a direct manner, focusing on exchanges that relate to working-class contexts.
Responses to his content vary: some interactions involve tension, as in cases where filming led to confrontations during events, while others suggest an audience interest in firsthand accounts. This direct style generates mixed but active feedback—supporters find it useful for revealing realities, whereas others view it as superficial or overly focused on dramatic elements. Nonetheless, the genuineness appears to sustain viewership, indicating that moving away from standardised corporate processes toward more open interactions might help strengthen audience connections.
Moore’s methods, however, raise points of debate common in decentralised media. Some observers suggest that recording in vulnerable settings could lean toward exploitation, presenting difficulties as content without sufficient emphasis on broader support or change. Questions include whether such unedited documentation effectively supports voices or perpetuates certain views, and if the absence of formal oversight aids or hinders accuracy.
These considerations are relevant, particularly as social media can contribute to divisions. They point to a need for adaptation in UK news media to avoid further disconnection from social experiences, including those tied to class. Mainstream providers, with their weirdly structured and performative styles, may distance many audiences by not fully capturing the directness Moore employs.
Resources like our Community-Focused Communications Evaluation Toolkit could assist in developing practices that are sustainable and inclusive, focusing on underrepresented viewpoints. Moreover, by considering elements of Moore’s DIY approach, media providers might contribute to a more inclusive news ecosystem—one that uses media technology for meaningful connections rather than primarily commercial purposes. As we push for improvements, examples like Moore suggest that effective engagement often stems from community levels rather than executive decisions. Without such adjustments, news media could become less connected in a period when communities seek representations that align with their experiences.