The publication of Ofcom’s October 2026 research into public attitudes towards offensive language provides an important opportunity for community media organisations to reflect on their editorial practices and wider civic responsibilities. Conducted by Ipsos UK, the research examines how audiences understand and respond to potentially offensive language across television, radio and video-on-demand services. Its findings are particularly relevant to community broadcasters operating in culturally diverse settings, where language carries different meanings depending on who is speaking, who is listening and the circumstances in which communication takes place.
The research combines a nationally representative survey of 4,289 UK adults with twenty-four focus groups and ten in-depth interviews. It builds on studies undertaken in 2010, 2016 and 2021, identifying changing attitudes towards language, discrimination and broadcasting standards. The findings suggest that audiences have become more accepting of general swearing while becoming less tolerant of language perceived as discriminatory. However, attitudes are far from uniform, and judgements depend considerably on context, social expectations and personal experience.
Why Context Matters
One of the report’s most useful contributions is its identification of four questions that shape audience responses: what was said, how it was broadcast, who said it and why it was said.
These distinctions are important because language does not possess a single, permanent meaning independent of its use. Words acquire significance through social interaction, cultural histories, relationships and perceived intentions. An expression regarded as affectionate humour within one community may be interpreted as a deliberate insult by another. Similarly, language considered acceptable in a dramatic performance may be inappropriate in a news bulletin or children’s programme.
The research also demonstrates that expectations vary between broadcasting platforms. Audiences generally tolerate stronger language when they have deliberately selected content, particularly through on-demand services. Radio and television broadcasters, however, are expected to exercise greater editorial responsibility, especially when children might encounter material unexpectedly.
In-Groups, Reclaimed Language and Social Boundaries
The report explores the use of reclaimed language, where people belonging to particular communities adopt terminology previously used against them. Some participants regarded this as empowering, while others questioned whether continued usage reinforces prejudice or creates inconsistent expectations.
This raises an important question about the difference between in-group and extra-group communication. Within a particular cultural setting, people may develop shared expressions, humour and codes that communicate belonging. Yet these expressions do not necessarily retain their intended meaning when used by people outside that group.
Even within communities, agreement cannot be assumed. The report identifies considerable differences among people who share particular characteristics or backgrounds. Some welcome the reclamation of language, while others reject it entirely.
For community media, the challenge is to recognise these differences without assuming that any individual speaks on behalf of an entire community. Cultural identity does not automatically confer agreement, nor does shared experience eliminate internal disagreement.
Bonding and Bridging Social Capital
These findings can be understood through the distinction between bonding and bridging social capital, although the report does not itself formally test these concepts.
Bonding social capital describes relationships strengthened through shared identities, experiences and social connections. Within these relationships, particular expressions may acquire a currency that reinforces trust, familiarity and solidarity. Language that outsiders consider inappropriate might function as affectionate humour, mutual recognition or an assertion of collective identity.
However, the same language may generate antagonism in situations requiring bridging social capital. Bridging relationships connect people across different communities, cultural backgrounds and social experiences. They depend on the ability to communicate beyond familiar assumptions and negotiate meanings that are not necessarily shared.
An expression that strengthens relationships inside one group may simultaneously weaken trust between groups. This is not simply a question of sensitivity. It concerns how people establish the conditions for cooperation, recognition and mutual respect.
When Private Codes Become Exclusionary
There is a further danger that deserves consideration. Language justified through the context of belonging may also function as a mechanism of social exclusion.
Groups can develop private vocabularies that distinguish insiders from outsiders, reinforce accepted behaviours and discourage challenges to established assumptions. These codes may provide reassurance and solidarity while simultaneously sustaining boundaries that prevent meaningful interaction with others.
We should therefore question whether every instance of apparently acceptable in-group language contributes positively to community life. Does its use empower individuals, or does it reinforce assumptions about who belongs and who does not?
The existence of a shared cultural context cannot automatically justify exclusionary communication. Indeed, repeated use of potentially discriminatory language within an otherwise supportive group may normalise attitudes that become antagonistic when expressed in wider civic settings.
Community media must be particularly alert to this distinction. Giving people a voice is important, but it does not follow that every established convention within a self-defined community should be endorsed without question.
Freedom of Expression and the Freedom to Offend
The research identifies considerable public support for balancing freedom of expression against protection from offensive material. Half of survey respondents considered these principles equally important, while others placed greater emphasis on either freedom or protection.
Broadcasting requires a similar balance between freedom of speech and the freedom to offend. Freedom of expression would mean little if it protected only statements that everyone already found agreeable.
Taking offence, however, does not confer a ‘get out of gaol free’ card that automatically invalidates another person’s contribution. Being offended cannot become sufficient justification for silencing legitimate disagreement, avoiding difficult evidence or preventing scrutiny of public claims.
Equally, freedom of expression does not eliminate responsibility for what is said. Broadcasters must distinguish legitimate challenge, satire and uncomfortable truths from discriminatory abuse, intimidation and deliberate humiliation.
The report supports a contextual approach rather than the wholesale removal of offensive language. This is consistent with the need to protect expression while recognising that speech has consequences and that licensed broadcasters have specific regulatory obligations.
Accuracy Must Take Priority in News Reporting
This balance is especially important in journalism. The research identifies tensions between professionalism and factual accuracy, particularly when news reporting involves language that audiences may find objectionable.
News organisations have a primary responsibility to establish and communicate accurate information. Accuracy must take precedence over aspirations to demonstrate empathy, kindness or emotional reassurance. Journalism cannot fulfil its democratic purpose if uncomfortable facts are omitted simply because their publication might upset particular individuals or communities.
This does not mean that journalists should disregard the consequences of their reporting. Accuracy and responsible presentation are compatible obligations. Offensive expressions can often be paraphrased without losing factual meaning, although precise quotations may sometimes be essential to understanding a significant event.
The editorial question should therefore be whether particular language is necessary to communicate the truth, not whether everybody will welcome hearing it.
Empathy can inform how journalists engage with contributors and audiences, but it must never become a substitute for verification, evidence and impartial scrutiny.
Moving Beyond Community Echo Chambers
The wider implication is that community media should not be satisfied merely with representing separate communities within their existing cultural boundaries.
Social cohesion requires more than different groups occupying parallel spaces, communicating primarily with people who share their assumptions. Such arrangements may strengthen bonding social capital while doing little to establish the bridging relationships necessary for civic cooperation.
Community media has an opportunity, and arguably a duty, to facilitate encounters between people who might otherwise remain socially disconnected.
This means encouraging intercultural discussion, introducing unfamiliar perspectives and creating opportunities for participants to question their assumptions without automatically interpreting disagreement as hostility.
It also requires community media practitioners to be reflective about their own language, editorial judgements and relationships with contributors. No community should be treated as internally uniform, and no cultural convention should be beyond reasonable examination.
A Responsibility to Civic Life
Ofcom’s research should therefore be understood as more than guidance about potentially offensive vocabulary. It raises wider questions about how language shapes relationships, reinforces boundaries and influences the possibility of living together in a diverse society.
Community media organisations should use these findings to review their editorial guidelines, volunteer training and approaches to participation. The aim should not be to eliminate uncomfortable language or suppress authentic cultural expression, but to understand its consequences across different social settings.
Ultimately, the purpose of community media must extend beyond reinforcing existing identities and familiar loyalties. Its civic value lies in helping people establish mutual understanding across differences.
That requires a commitment to freedom of expression, journalistic accuracy, intercultural understanding and common decency. It also requires an openness to challenging the language and assumptions that prevent people from recognising one another as fellow participants in a shared civic life.
Source: Ipsos UK for Ofcom (October 2026), Public Attitudes Towards Offensive Language on Television, Radio and Video-on-Demand.