Ofcom’s latest report, “Co-creating Ways to Navigate and Mitigate Against Mis and Disinformation”, offers a timely and insightful contribution to the ongoing debate about how we understand and respond to misinformation in a rapidly evolving media landscape. Based on detailed qualitative research, the report recognises that susceptibility to misinformation is not confined to a single demographic or ideological group, but can affect anyone—depending on the social context, the information ecosystem they inhabit, and their level of trust in communication processes.
At Decentered Media, we welcome this report, not only as a reflection of best practice in evidence-led research, but as a call to arms for community media practitioners and advocates. The findings reinforce what many in the community media sector have known for some time: that the structural dynamics of dominant media platforms are extractive by design. Engagement is driven by outrage, sensationalism, and division because this fuels clicks and keeps users within the platform’s monetised environment. In such a system, trusted content and open discussion become devalued because they are less profitable.
In contrast, community media is built on the premise of trust, local relevance, and inclusive dialogue. But we must now ask, with rigour and honesty: are our own systems truly facilitating understanding? Are our content production processes designed to build trust, counter misinformation, and enable meaningful civic discourse—especially among the diverse social, cultural, and linguistic communities we aim to represent?
The Ofcom report outlines how many people, particularly from minority groups and those for whom English is not a first language, struggle to navigate a complex and often contradictory information landscape. It shows that trusted communication does not come from institutional authority alone, but from a wide range of community-embedded voices—teachers, peers, local leaders, health professionals, and yes, local media producers.
Community media must take seriously the opportunity this presents. We are not simply filling a gap left by failing commercial or national broadcasters; we are helping to define what democratic media can look like in the 21st century. That means developing communication practices that uphold both freedom of expression and civic responsibility—not as opposites, but as complementary democratic values.
We must also resist the temptation to cling to legacy forms of media delivery without adapting to the challenges and possibilities of digital decentralisation. This is not about fetishising technology or abandoning what has worked. It is about understanding how values like truthfulness, accountability, mutual respect, and dialogue must be translated into new formats and shared across new networks. It means building systems that are resilient, distributed, and pluralistic—where people can speak for themselves, but also be held to account by the communities they serve.
The report’s emphasis on co-creation and non-judgemental dialogue offers a clear pointer for how we proceed. If people are to change their views in response to evidence and experience, they need time, space, and support—not top-down enforcement, social shaming, or rigid policing of thought. Community media, at its best, provides these spaces: it fosters slow learning, inclusive storytelling, and collaborative sense-making.
But to do so effectively, we need to invest—not only in equipment or distribution tools, but in the relationships, training, and ethical practices that underpin genuine participation. We need to empower community media producers to reflect on their own role in the information ecosystem: Are we listening as well as broadcasting? Are we inclusive in who gets to speak? Do we challenge misinformation within our own networks? Are we designing our processes to build understanding, not just content?
This means embracing a more forward-thinking view of media communications. One that respects the localised, people-centred ethos of community radio, newspapers, podcasts and video platforms—but which also looks ahead to the new democratic values we must champion: the right to speak, the responsibility to be truthful, the need to maintain autonomy over our means of expression, and the obligation to foster good social relations across difference.
In short, Ofcom’s report provides not just a diagnosis, but a direction. It invites us to step up as community media advocates—not just to ‘combat’ misinformation, but to create something better. To be agents of a decentralised, dialogic, and democratic communications culture. One that doesn’t enforce groupthink or ideological purity, but which supports pluralism, empathy, and mutual accountability.
The work is already happening—in small studios, online collectives, and grassroots campaigns. But now we must join the dots and scale the impact. Because only through decentralised, trusted, and civic-led communication systems can we truly support people to navigate the complexities of our media-saturated world—not just with scepticism, but with solidarity, curiosity, and hope.