In discussions about the future of media in the UK, regulation is often cast as an impediment—something that restricts innovation, interferes with market forces, or keeps legacy institutions afloat past their time. But what if we reframed regulation not as a barrier, but as a form of protection? Not protection of commercial interests or broadcasting monopolies, but of something deeper and more vital: the everyday infrastructure of communication that sustains social connection, civic engagement, and place-based identity.
The term ‘local’ is used often and with ease across media policy, broadcasting regulation, and journalism debates. But do we really know what it means any more? And does it matter that the term is so loosely defined? In an economy where centralised media production is increasingly designed to mimic local presence, does the looseness of this language allow for an erosion of something essential?
The challenge is not just semantic. If localness is left as a vague or floating term, it becomes easy to substitute it with surface references: a newsreader pronouncing local place names, or a traffic update inserted into an otherwise generic playlist. What does this kind of substitution do to the trust that people place in their local media? And how does it affect the capacity of communities to see themselves represented with care and accountability?
These questions become more urgent when considered alongside the Foundational Economies model. If we understand local media not as a luxury but as part of the essential infrastructure of daily life—on par with housing, health, and transport—then its protection becomes a matter of shared responsibility, not market preference. Who is responsible, then, for ensuring that media rooted in local places survives, adapts, and continues to serve its community? And what happens when this responsibility is passed over in favour of scale, efficiency, or reach?
The irony is that while national and regional broadcasters often point to audience size and commercial pressures as justification for centralisation, the experience of many communities is one of deep disconnection. What does it mean to hear a story about your town told from a distant city with no knowledge of its context, history, or tone? What kind of listening does that produce? What kind of storytelling is lost?
If media regulation were designed as a form of protection, whose voice would it centre? Would it focus solely on geographic boundaries, or would it account for the diversity of local realities—migrant communities, dispersed networks, informal support structures? Can regulation help us move away from a static notion of locality, and towards one that reflects how people live, move, and identify with place?
There are risks, of course. Protecting something too tightly can exclude the unexpected. Over-defining locality can freeze it in time or turn it into a bureaucratic box to be ticked. Compliance mechanisms, if poorly designed, can drain the energy from community-led projects rather than sustain them. But is the answer to abandon protection altogether—or to develop a more imaginative and responsive form of stewardship?
In the foundational model, communication is not a product to be consumed but a relationship to be maintained. So what kind of relationships are we maintaining through local media today? And what kind do we want to foster?
As media reform gains momentum in the UK, now is the time to ask: What do we mean when we say ‘local’? What practices are we willing to protect? And how can our regulatory frameworks reflect not just the geography of broadcasting, but the lived and layered geographies of community, memory, and belonging?
If you’re interested in shaping how terms like local, community, and public are defined in media policy and practice, we invite you to join the conversation.
At Decentered Media, we’re exploring these concepts not just as abstract labels, but as vital components of everyday life, foundational economies, and civic participation. As the media landscape changes, so must the language we use to describe it.
Subscribe to our Patreon to take part in thoughtful, ongoing discussions about how these terms are being used, reconfigured, and tested—and whether they’re still fit for purpose.