The ongoing crisis in local journalism has become impossible to ignore. Reports such as “Irrelevant and Unloved: How the Press Lost Touch with the Public” and “Regenerating Local News” make an urgent case for addressing the collapse of local news provision in the UK. They detail a system that has become hollowed out, disconnected from people’s lives, and incapable of representing the breadth and complexity of local experiences. Public trust has eroded, media jobs have been centralised and cut, and the democratic role of journalism has been severely diminished.
These are essential discussions, and the need for policy intervention is pressing. However, what’s often overlooked is how narrow these reports’ definitions of “news” can be, and how much of the public interest remains under the radar when viewed only through the lens of conventional journalism. We must recognise that local media ecosystems are broader than the production of news alone. A truly healthy and sustainable media infrastructure needs to go beyond information delivery – it must build relationships. It must nourish a sense of belonging, identification, community engagement, and democratic participation.
In short, we don’t just need local news – we need local media.
That means recognising the vital, day-to-day work already being done by a diverse range of actors: community radio stations, podcast creators, local bloggers, community video platforms, schools and colleges, arts and heritage organisations, libraries, faith groups, youth media collectives, and many more. These groups provide what we call Foundational Media – communications infrastructures rooted in place, guided by values of care, mutual support, and democratic accountability. These services are essential to a regenerative local economy. They help communities talk to themselves, not just be talked at.
To build on these foundations, different groups need to come together and pool their expertise. Professional journalists can and should be part of this mix – but so too must educators, creative practitioners, digital organisers, and civic groups. Collaboration is not optional; it’s essential.
This work cannot be centrally planned, nor can it be standardised through top-down frameworks or short-term pilot schemes. It must be grown organically, and tailored to the specific needs, cultures, and aspirations of each place. What’s needed is not a cookie-cutter model, but a pluralistic, distributed media landscape that values listening as much as broadcasting.
To achieve this, we must shift the logic of media development. Instead of trying to feed off what audiences already ‘care about’ (usually measured by clicks and shares), we need a media that actively cares for its communities – supporting their civic life, celebrating their cultures, challenging injustice, and facilitating democratic dialogue. This requires a reorientation of purpose: from extraction to regeneration, from consumption to co-production.
That’s why we’re calling for the creation of local media collaboration hubs – shared spaces where foundational media providers can work together to develop content, share tools and resources, and build capacity. These hubs should be community-led, accountable, and designed to return both financial and social capital to the communities they serve. They should support experimentation, long-term relationship-building, and participatory governance. And they should be supported by public policy that values local autonomy and creative diversity, rather than enforcing uniformity.
If the goal is to regenerate local news, we must first regenerate the media cultures that sustain our communities. That means investing in trust, relationships, creativity, and shared purpose. It means recognising that journalism is not the only form of public communication that matters – and that it is most powerful when it grows in dialogue with the people it seeks to serve.
Let’s stop asking what’s wrong with the public, and start building a media system that shows up for them.