The concentration of media ownership in the UK has long been a challenge for democratic participation, local representation, and public accountability. A handful of corporations and institutions set the agenda for national conversations, shaping public understanding of issues in ways that often fail to reflect the lived realities of communities across the country. At the same time, public service media, while valued for its role in civic life, remains structurally centralised, limiting opportunities for localised and diverse storytelling.
The question of media reform is frequently debated in abstract terms, framed as an issue of market failures, regulatory shortcomings, or the declining viability of journalism. Yet, practical solutions to address these challenges typically remain elusive. How can a media system be restructured to serve the public interest without replicating the top-down models of the past? What mechanisms would ensure that media ownership and governance reflect the needs of communities rather than the financial interests of shareholders or the strategic priorities of the state?
A different approach is possible, one that builds from the principle of subsidiarity—the idea that decision-making should take place at the lowest level at which it can be effectively managed. If applied to media, this would mean shifting authority over funding, regulation, and content production away from centralised institutions and towards regions, localities, and cooperative ownership structures. Instead of a single national broadcaster setting priorities for the whole country, public service media could operate as a federated network, with greater editorial autonomy at regional and local levels. Independent media could be supported through financial models that enable sustainability without reliance on corporate advertising or philanthropic donations that come with restrictive conditions.
The challenge lies in defining what such a transition would require in practice. If media is to be integrated into the foundational economy, alongside transport, housing, and utilities, what funding models would ensure long-term viability? If regulatory power is devolved, how can consistency be maintained without allowing monopolistic interests to reassert control in different regions? If media ownership is diversified, what safeguards are needed to ensure editorial independence is not compromised by financial instability or political influence?
Reforming media governance is not just a question of breaking up monopolies or shifting funding mechanisms. It is about developing structures that enable communities to have a stake in their own media ecosystems. This raises further questions about the role of civic society groups, public authorities, and trade unions in shaping a pluralistic and sustainable media landscape. Should local governments take on a more active role in supporting independent journalism? Would cooperative models of ownership be scalable beyond niche projects? How can public service broadcasters be made more accountable to the communities they serve rather than to centralised regulatory bodies?
The risk in any media reform discussion is that it becomes detached from the practicalities of implementation. The aspiration for independent, pluralistic, and publicly accountable media is widely shared among advocates, but unless the debate moves beyond critique towards structural change, the outcome will remain the same—a media system that serves commercial interests more effectively than democratic ones.
Pragmatic policy thinking requires confronting difficult trade-offs. If public funding is allocated to independent media, how should that funding be distributed without introducing new forms of political dependency? If national institutions such as the BBC are restructured, what transitional models would prevent disruption to existing services? If regulation is decentralised, how can safeguards against misinformation and media capture be maintained without falling into the same patterns of over-centralisation?
These are the questions that must be addressed if media reform is to move beyond idealism and towards meaningful change. The challenge is not simply to identify problems, but to construct policies that balance independence with accountability, sustainability with adaptability, and autonomy with public interest obligations. The future of UK media does not have to be shaped by the existing structures that have dominated for decades. The space exists to think differently, but only if the conversation shifts from critique to construction.
What would it take to move towards a federated model of public service media that is truly accountable to the regions and communities it serves? What financial instruments could be developed to support independent journalism without making it dependent on precarious funding streams? How can governance frameworks ensure that decentralisation strengthens democratic participation rather than creating new centres of unaccountable power?
These are the questions that those advocating for media reform must now engage with if real change is to be realised.