At Decentered Media, we welcome opportunities to rethink how our shared media institutions might evolve. The Media Reform Coalition and Common Wealth’s proposal to mutualise the BBC—outlined in a recent conversation between Roger Bolton and Dr Tom Mills—offers one such opportunity. Their argument is principled, timely, and aligned with democratic values: to replace government-appointed control of the BBC with a mutual structure in which licence fee payers become co-owners and participants in its governance. In theory, this could insulate the BBC from political manipulation and renew its legitimacy in a fragmented media landscape.
But this proposal must be weighed against deeper systemic concerns. As supporters of alternative, decentralised, and community-driven media models, we believe reform cannot be limited to top-down institutional redesign. Mutualisation, while admirable in intent, risks replicating the same issues it seeks to fix if not paired with a fundamental shift in how media power is distributed and made accountable to the people it claims to serve.
The central question is one of proximity and trust: whose door can we knock on if we don’t like the media we are being given? For too long, large-scale media—whether state-funded or corporate—has drifted away from the everyday lives and concerns of ordinary people. Decision-making has become abstract, managed by distant boards or invisible algorithms. Producers and journalists are increasingly insulated from the communities they report on. The result is a growing sense of alienation: media feels less like a public service and more like a product line.
This is where the Foundational Economy offers crucial insight. Unlike the extractive logics of corporate media giants, the foundational economy emphasises the essential services that people rely on—delivered and maintained close to where they live. From schools and transport to health and housing, foundational services derive their legitimacy not from scale or profitability, but from their rootedness in local relationships and infrastructures. Media must be understood in the same way: as a civic infrastructure, not a market commodity. When local media is made by people who live in the communities they report on, accountability becomes a matter of shared experience—not abstract governance.
The risk with mutualising a centralised system like the BBC is that it reinforces a belief that all reform must happen at the centre. But democratic media needs more than institutional redesign. It needs a distributed ecology of small-scale, participatory, and independent media projects that embody public value in practice. These are the organisations, groups, and networks that are accountable in a way no centralised system ever can be. They are the neighbours you can call on. The people you meet at the market. The voice that understands the context because they live it too.
It’s not that we should reject mutualisation. Rather, we must ask how it is implemented and who it benefits. Any new system of governance must be proofed against ideological capture—whether by party-political factions or corporate lobbying interests. Editorial and creative independence must be maintained. Participation must be meaningful, not performative. And resource distribution must encourage innovation and challenge, not homogenisation or lowest-common-denominator content.
This also means confronting the reality that many forms of mutual governance work only when the demands on members are minimal. Expecting widespread engagement in a centralised BBC governance structure might be idealistic. Unless it is coupled with strong, place-based alternatives—community newsrooms, local podcast networks, civic media partnerships—it risks reproducing the same alienation under a different name.
The consequences of inaction are clear: a continued drift toward unaccountable media power, shrinking public trust, and a public sphere dominated by extractive platforms that value clicks over clarity, and outrage over understanding.
But there are risks in acting without grounding our ambitions in practical, decentralised models. Reform imposed from above—however well-intentioned—can become as hollow as the systems it replaces. Real transformation must come from building with people, not just for them.
If we are to reimagine public media for the 21st century, let’s not start with the BBC. Let’s start in the streets, cafés, libraries, housing co-ops, and WhatsApp groups where people are already making sense of their lives. Let’s build models that are inherently resilient because they are small, local, and participatory. Let’s prove that a better media system is not only possible, but already emerging—in ways that don’t require permission from the centre.
The conversation about the BBC is a valuable one. But it’s only part of the picture. The real work lies in showing what distributed, trusted, and democratic media looks like—and in building it from the ground up.