Community media has long been understood as more than just an alternative to commercial and public service broadcasting. At its core, it is meant to provide social gain—a broad set of civic, cultural, and community benefits that go beyond entertainment or market-driven media. Social gain includes community representation, participation, media literacy, and the strengthening of local identity and democratic engagement.
Over a decade ago, there was a real possibility that social gain could be enshrined as a core principle of community media policy. It was recognised in early regulatory frameworks, community radio licensing, and funding debates. However, that promise has not been fulfilled.
Instead of being developed into a structured and supported principle, social gain has faded from the priorities of policymakers, regulators, and even many advocates of community media themselves. What should have been an opportunity to build a resilient, participatory, and locally accountable media system has been left underdeveloped, and in some areas, actively reversed.
Rather than progress, we have seen:
- Regulatory retreat – Ofcom has moved away from requiring measurable social gain in community radio licensing.
- A shift towards market justifications – Community media is now often evaluated by its economic viability rather than its civic contribution.
- The erosion of community-led broadcasting – Small-Scale DAB (SSDAB) has prioritised commercial and semi-commercial models at the expense of social-purpose media, where licences are defined by measures of ‘some’ social gain, rather than ‘significant’ social gain.
The consequence is that community media is increasingly pushed to the margins, while at the same time, the social needs that it was designed to address have only become more acute.
My 2018 PhD Research: The Value of Participation in Community Media
In 2018, I completed and defended my PhD thesis on the value of participation in community media, focusing on how it functions as a neutral social process—one that can empower communities but also faces structural challenges that limit its impact.
Rather than viewing community media through the lens of texts, regulations, and institutions, my research focused on the lived experience of participation—examining how individuals engage with community media in practice. This meant studying the social processes, relationships, and interactions that define community media, rather than treating it as just another branch of the wider media landscape.
A key conclusion of my thesis was that participation is a neutral social process—meaning that while it has the potential to drive positive social change, it is not inherently progressive or empowering. Instead, participation is shaped by the structures, conditions, and resources available within each community media setting.
The Benefits of Participation in Community Media
When supported properly, participation in community media can:
- Increase civic engagement – People become more informed, connected, and able to engage with public life.
- Develop skills and confidence – Community media provides a learning environment for media production, communication, and leadership.
- Foster community identity and cohesion – It gives local people a voice in shaping the narratives about their own communities.
- Provide alternative narratives – It counters mainstream media’s tendency toward homogenisation and top-down storytelling.
Participation in community media fosters a strong sense of empowerment among individuals and groups by enabling them to take control of their own narratives. Community media offers people the opportunity to develop technical skills in broadcasting, journalism, and digital production, equipping them with tools that can enhance their employability and personal confidence. This skill development is not just limited to media production but extends to critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving, helping individuals to engage with society in more informed and articulate ways.
Beyond individual growth, participation in community media strengthens the fabric of local communities by fostering inclusivity and representation. It provides a platform for marginalised voices that are often overlooked by mainstream media, offering a space where diverse cultural identities, local concerns, and underrepresented perspectives can find expression. This inclusion helps build a sense of belonging, particularly in areas where social fragmentation or exclusion might otherwise prevail. By allowing individuals to tell their own stories and share their experiences, community media becomes a tool for social cohesion, encouraging dialogue and mutual understanding among different groups.
One of the defining benefits of community media participation is the role it plays in fostering civic engagement. By encouraging individuals to take an active interest in local issues, governance, and public affairs, it transforms passive media consumers into engaged citizens. Community broadcasters often cover topics and events that are overlooked by mainstream outlets, giving residents access to news and discussions that directly impact their lives. This connection to local affairs not only raises awareness but also motivates action, as people become more inclined to participate in campaigns, discussions, and civic initiatives that shape their communities.
In addition to its democratic benefits, community media provides a vital counterbalance to media monopolisation and homogenisation. The rise of algorithm-driven content distribution and commercial media consolidation has reduced the diversity of voices and perspectives available in the public sphere. Community-led broadcasting reintroduces plurality into media discourse, ensuring that narratives are not solely shaped by corporate interests or mass-market appeal. The autonomy of community media allows for greater editorial independence, making it an important space for investigative reporting, alternative viewpoints, and grassroots activism.
Through fostering local storytelling, equipping individuals with media skills, amplifying marginalised voices, and encouraging active civic participation, community media remains an indispensable component of a healthy democratic society. Its capacity to strengthen social ties, counteract exclusion, and empower individuals to shape the narratives that define their communities underscores its ongoing relevance and importance.
The Challenges of Participation in Community Media
However, my research also highlighted significant barriers:
- Regulatory neglect – Without a structured policy framework, participation is often left unsupported or undervalued.
- Resource constraints – Many community media organisations lack the funding, training, or infrastructure to sustain long-term participation.
- Limited influence – Without integration into wider civic and media networks, community media struggles to make an impact beyond its immediate participants.
- Risk of co-option – In some cases, community media is shaped by external pressures (funding bodies, local authorities, commercial interests) that undermine its grassroots nature.
While community media presents an invaluable space for representation, engagement, and skill development, participation is often fraught with difficulties that stem from structural, financial, and organisational constraints. Many community media initiatives operate with limited resources, making it challenging to maintain sustainable and consistent programming. The reliance on volunteers, while a core strength in fostering grassroots involvement, also presents difficulties when it comes to long-term sustainability, as many participants struggle to balance their commitment with employment and other responsibilities.
Regulatory challenges further complicate participation, as community media organisations are often subject to licensing and compliance requirements that do not take into account their distinct social function. Unlike commercial broadcasters, community stations may not have the administrative capacity to navigate complex legal and funding structures, placing them at a disadvantage when applying for grants or lobbying for policy support. This bureaucratic burden can hinder their ability to focus on creative and participatory content production, instead diverting energy into administrative survival.
A lack of visibility in the broader media ecosystem also weakens the ability of community media to attract and retain participants. Mainstream media continues to dominate public consciousness, making it difficult for alternative platforms to reach audiences, engage new volunteers, and establish credibility. Without sufficient public awareness and institutional recognition, community media risks being seen as a marginal or amateur endeavour rather than a vital component of the democratic media landscape.
Internal challenges, such as governance and leadership structures, can also affect participation. Many community media organisations operate as collectives or cooperatives, which, while democratic in principle, can sometimes struggle with decision-making and conflict resolution. The absence of professional development pathways within community media further exacerbates these difficulties, as participants may find it challenging to progress within the sector or translate their experiences into sustainable career opportunities. As a result, engagement in community media can sometimes be transient, with high turnover rates limiting the long-term impact of projects.
Despite these challenges, participation in community media remains a profoundly important means of fostering civic dialogue, countering media monopolisation, and empowering individuals and communities. However, for participation to be truly effective, structural reforms are needed to ensure that community media receives the recognition, funding, and regulatory support necessary to function as a resilient and impactful sector. Without these changes, the obstacles facing participation will continue to undermine its transformative potential, limiting the reach and effectiveness of community-driven media initiatives.
Even at the time, it was clear that community media had not been given the structural support necessary to fully realise its potential. But rather than improving, the situation has worsened. In the years since my research, many of these challenges have become more pronounced, and the opportunity to develop a strong participatory media culture has been squandered.
The Regression of Community Media Regulation
Community radio was originally licensed in the UK with a clear public service mandate. Stations were expected not just to broadcast, but to provide measurable social gain—delivering community benefits through local representation, skills training, civic engagement, and cultural development. In the early years of community radio regulation, there was an expectation that stations would demonstrate how they contributed to their communities, reinforcing the idea that they were not just smaller versions of commercial stations but an entirely distinct form of public-interest media. However, instead of strengthening these principles over time, regulation has moved in the opposite direction, gradually eroding the foundation on which community radio was established.
A key moment in this retreat was the decision by Ofcom to abandon the requirement for stations to provide evidence of social gain. This shift marked a fundamental change in how community radio was understood within the broader media landscape. Without this obligation, stations were no longer required to formally assess or document their impact on local participation, media literacy, or democratic engagement. The removal of this regulatory condition meant that stations could now operate without a structured framework for ensuring their social purpose, making it more difficult to argue for policy support, funding mechanisms, or public investment. What had once been a guiding principle became an abstract concept, no longer central to licensing or regulatory oversight.
At the same time, the expansion of Small-Scale Digital Audio Broadcasting (SSDAB) introduced further challenges to the distinctiveness of community media. While SSDAB was initially presented as a way to enhance local broadcasting and provide more opportunities for diverse voices, in practice, it has facilitated the proliferation of low-cost, commercially driven stations. The intention of SSDAB was to make broadcasting more accessible, yet the reality has been an increasing dominance of stations that operate on business models prioritising sustainability through advertising and sponsorship, rather than public service or participatory engagement. Community radio, once a space dedicated to fostering local storytelling, inclusion, and grassroots communication, has been reshaped by an economic logic that prioritises financial viability over civic purpose.
This transition has led to a fundamental question about the role of community media within the broader regulatory environment. The shift away from social gain as a licensing requirement reflects a wider transformation in media policy, where community broadcasting is no longer framed as a public good but rather as a secondary tier of radio provision.
Rather than reinforcing community media’s role as a counterbalance to the concentration of media ownership and a tool for democratic participation, policymakers have increasingly favoured an approach that evaluates stations based on their ability to sustain themselves financially. This emphasis on self-sufficiency, while practical in some respects, overlooks the broader contributions that community media can make when properly supported.
The move away from regulating community radio in terms of social gain has also had implications for how these stations interact with funding bodies and potential partners. Without a clear regulatory obligation to demonstrate public impact, securing funding from public and third-sector sources has become increasingly difficult.
Funding bodies often rely on measurable outcomes to justify investment, yet without a structured reporting mechanism within the regulatory framework, community stations struggle to provide the kind of impact assessments that funders require. This has contributed to a situation where community radio increasingly turns towards commercial revenue streams, which in turn reshapes programming priorities and operational models.
Additionally, the regulatory shift has diminished the space for genuine participation in media production. When community media was originally conceived, it was positioned as a way to challenge traditional broadcasting hierarchies, allowing ordinary people to take an active role in content creation. However, as the focus has moved towards financial sustainability, there has been a growing professionalisation of community radio, where stations are encouraged to function more like small-scale commercial enterprises.
This has, in many cases, led to a narrowing of opportunities for volunteer-led, community-driven programming, replacing it with formats designed to attract advertisers and sponsors rather than serve participatory or educational goals.
The withdrawal of structured regulatory support for social gain has left community radio in a precarious position. At precisely the moment when public trust in traditional media is declining and local voices are increasingly marginalised, community media should be at the forefront of efforts to rebuild civic discourse.
Yet, instead of expanding its reach and influence, it has been left without a clear policy framework to sustain its original mission. This failure to reinforce and update the principles of social gain has not only weakened community media’s standing but has also reduced its ability to act as a meaningful alternative to mainstream and corporate-controlled media.
As media landscapes continue to evolve, there remains an urgent need to reassert the value of community media as a distinct and necessary part of public life. Regulation must go beyond simply ensuring that stations are financially sustainable; it must once again prioritise community participation, local representation, and civic engagement as core functions. Without this recalibration, community media risks losing its identity and becoming indistinguishable from the very commercial models it was designed to challenge.
Can Social Gain Be Reclaimed?
Reclaiming social gain as a core principle of community media requires a renewed commitment to recognising its civic function. For too long, community media has been left to navigate an increasingly commercialised environment without the structural support it needs to thrive. This has allowed market forces to dictate its development, diminishing its role as a facilitator of participation, representation, and local storytelling.
The challenge now is to reposition community media as an essential part of the public sphere, ensuring it is supported through regulation, funding, and policy frameworks that prioritise its social value rather than its market performance.
To achieve this, there must be a concerted effort to shift regulatory priorities. Policymakers must reintroduce social gain as a defining characteristic of community broadcasting, ensuring that stations are held accountable for their civic contributions. This would involve re-establishing mechanisms for assessing impact, creating funding structures that reward social engagement rather than financial sustainability alone, and integrating community media more fully into wider discussions on media plurality and democratic participation. Without these interventions, community media will continue to be undervalued and under-resourced, preventing it from fulfilling its true potential.
In addition to regulatory change, there must also be a renewed emphasis on public advocacy. Community media practitioners, researchers, and activists need to articulate the importance of participatory media in fostering social cohesion and democratic engagement. By building alliances with civil society organisations, local government, and cultural institutions, community media can position itself as an indispensable tool for social change, rather than a niche sector struggling for survival.
Through stronger advocacy, the conversation around community media can move beyond questions of economic viability and focus instead on its indispensable role in shaping inclusive, engaged, and informed societies.
Ultimately, reclaiming social gain is not just about policy reform; it is about reaffirming the principle that media should serve the public, rather than just commercial interests. Without a clear and sustained effort to reinforce this value, community media risks further marginalisation. The time has come to reassert its place in the media landscape, ensuring that it remains a powerful space for civic engagement, community empowerment, and local representation.
Time for a New Social Gain Framework
Rebuilding a framework for social gain in community media requires a fundamental reassessment of the role that media plays in civic life. The decline of structured support has left community broadcasters in a vulnerable position, caught between the pressure to generate commercial revenue and the expectation that they continue to provide essential public service functions. A renewed commitment to social gain must involve a holistic approach that integrates regulation, advocacy, and sustainable financial models.
Regulation must once again recognise community media as a public good, ensuring that its value is defined by its contribution to civic engagement rather than by its financial performance. A regulatory system that enforces social gain obligations would provide a foundation for ensuring that stations remain accountable to the communities they serve.
This should not be framed as an additional burden but as a mechanism to protect the integrity of community broadcasting, preserving it as a space for participatory content creation, independent storytelling, and democratic discourse. The failure to reinstate such requirements risks further diminishing the role of community media, reducing it to a marginalised sector that struggles to justify its existence within an increasingly commercialised media landscape.
A new framework must also be underpinned by proactive advocacy that reinforces the significance of community media in shaping inclusive and democratic societies. Community broadcasters must develop stronger alliances with civil society organisations, educational institutions, and local authorities to assert their relevance beyond traditional media spaces.
By positioning community media as a vital infrastructure for local democracy and civic engagement, it can gain the recognition it needs to be formally integrated into broader policy discussions on media pluralism and public interest journalism.
Sustainability remains a pressing issue, requiring funding mechanisms that reflect the unique role of community media. Traditional commercial revenue models do not align with the participatory and civic-oriented mission of community broadcasting. To ensure long-term viability, funding strategies should prioritise public investment, grant opportunities tailored to social impact, and financial structures that do not force stations to compromise their editorial independence. Without such support, community media will continue to be at risk of co-option by market forces that erode its original purpose.
The future of community media depends on the ability to construct a framework that does more than just enable its survival. It must actively reinforce its role as a cornerstone of participatory democracy, ensuring that local voices continue to be heard in an increasingly fragmented and corporate-dominated media environment.
The shift towards reclaiming social gain is not just about revising policies; it is about redefining media as a shared public resource, rather than as a commodity shaped by economic pressures. If action is not taken now, community media risks further marginalisation, depriving society of an essential means of grassroots expression and local representation.