Grounded sociological research into media use in the UK is limited and under-attended. While community radio repeats outdated formats, social media creators like Billy Moore’s All or Nothing show how people adapt media for social cohesion, creativity, and everyday needs—beyond Ofcom and BBC control.
Our media is ubiquitous. It is everywhere. From streaming services and podcasts to community radio, WhatsApp groups, and TikTok feeds, our daily lives are saturated with platforms and channels. But the crucial question is: do we really know what people are doing with this media, and how it functions within their social lives? Despite decades of debate about the role of the press, broadcasting, and digital platforms, there is still little grounded sociological research into media use in the UK. We remain caught between abstract policy statements and audience ratings, with few detailed studies that explain how media is experienced and made meaningful in everyday contexts.
Herbert Blumer repeatedly cautioned against pre-determining the outcomes of research before entering the field. As he put it: ‘The only assurances are to be found in direct, meticulous examination of the empirical world’ (Blumer, 1969). He stressed that social interaction must be seen as a formative process in its own right, not as the expression of predetermined factors. This reminder is vital when considering the realities of UK media use today, where assumptions often substitute for empirical investigation.
Robert Prus emphasised a similar point, noting that: ‘Human group life is intersubjective, reflective, activity-based, negotiable, relational, and processual’ (Prus, 1996). For Prus, any study of human behaviour requires immersion into the lived realities of people, through ethnographic engagement that captures how individuals create, sustain, and alter their meanings in context. Media research in the UK has not sufficiently embraced this principle, leaving many unanswered questions about the role of media in social cohesion, exclusion, and creativity.
John Dewey, whose pragmatism deeply influenced Blumer and the methods of symbolic interactionism, argued that inquiry should be ‘a process directed at resolving the indeterminate situations of everyday life’ (Dewey, 1938). Rather than imposing rigid models, Dewey saw research as an iterative and adaptive practice, grounded in experience. His emphasis on experimentation in democratic life is a timely reminder that research into media must account for creative, shifting uses that people make of platforms in their daily activities.
Richard Rorty further warned that truth should not be conceived as correspondence to fixed structures, but as what a community of inquirers finds useful and workable in practice. For Rorty (1982), the strength of research lies in its openness to dialogue and re-description, rather than its conformity to pre-established systems. In the context of media use, this pragmatic orientation challenges us to ask not what media should be doing in theory, but what it is doing in practice for people in their diverse contexts.
Community media is often held up as the space for grassroots innovation, but in the UK much of it is driven by conformity rather than experimentation. Community radio stations, for example, are frequently bound by narrow licence requirements, volunteer shortages, and limited resources. These pressures encourage safe programming rather than risky or experimental formats. Many community radio schedules still echo the ‘formatted’ approach of 1990s commercial radio, where music playlists and presenter chat are kept within a rigid structure. This creates the paradox of community radio offering the sound of localism but rarely the substance of diverse or experimental voices.
Meanwhile, new voices are rising through digital platforms without such constraints. Take Billy Moore’s YouTube channel All or Nothing. Moore speaks directly and unfiltered, capturing lived experiences of working-class life, addiction, recovery, and everyday struggles in cities and towns across the UK. His style is raw, unpolished, and empathetic — so it resonates with audiences precisely because it bypasses institutional polish and speaks to realities that formatted radio often avoids. Moore’s influence points to a new form of media practice in which individual creators can mobilise attention, tell stories, and build communities without recourse to licences, playlists, or regulatory frameworks.
The contrast between the rise of social media influencers like Billy Moore and the stagnation of community radio highlights a profound gap in our understanding. We know little about how audiences [forget audiences, this is about people] are navigating between these forms, or why one seems to speak to them more than the other. We also know little about how people are adapting tools like YouTube, TikTok, or WhatsApp to suit their own cultural and social needs, beyond what can be gleaned from metrics and advertising data. Here lies the missed opportunity: rather than assuming that certain media forms automatically serve the goals of social cohesion or inclusion, we need grounded, field-based research into what people actually do with media and why it matters to them.
Without such research, we cannot answer fundamental questions. Are people using media to reduce loneliness, or to reinforce social divides? Does access to platforms encourage participation in civic life, or replicate inequalities? Do community radio stations still provide a meaningful sense of belonging, or have YouTube creators and social media influencers become the new public voice? These questions demand empirical investigation, not abstract speculation.
If we are serious about understanding media’s contribution to society, we need to shift from counting clicks to observing contexts. We need to ask how media is being lived and reshaped in real-world settings, whether in the unfiltered honesty of a YouTube monologue or the formulaic structure of a community radio schedule. Until then, our knowledge will remain partial, our policy frameworks blunt, and our ability to support democratic and innovative media practices severely limited. The challenge, following Blumer, Dewey, Prus, and Rorty, is to enter the field with open eyes and to study media as it is enacted—not as we presume it to be.
The policy implication may be stark: Ofcom and the BBC are increasingly redundant in their top-down attempts to regulate or define media, because they have little control or influence over the patterns of development that emerge from people and communities themselves. What we are witnessing is the overturning of the institutional model of media provision, in which large organisations once set the terms of engagement. Today, it is people, working through their own platforms and practices, who are reshaping the media landscape in ways that institutions can no longer dictate.