Radiocentre’s Force for Good report highlights commercial radio’s role in providing trusted news, companionship, and community support, but defining true public value requires more than audience size or market success. Under the UK Social Value Act, public funding or regulatory privilege must demonstrate measurable social, economic, and environmental benefits, ensuring accountability rather than industry self-assessment. Commercial radio deserves recognition for its independence, yet public purpose media needs clear terms, transparent evaluation, and alignment with national policy priorities. This report should spark a wider debate—similar to BBC Charter Renewal—on what the public expects from all media and how those expectations are delivered.
Radiocentre’s recent Force for Good report makes a strong case for the benefits of radio. It highlights how commercial radio continues to provide companionship, trusted information, and mental well-being at scale. In a fragmented media environment, these are compelling points, and the contribution of radio to daily life should not be underestimated.
However, when we talk about the public value of media, we need to be clear about what this means and how it is delivered. At Decentered Media, we use the term public purpose media to describe content and platforms that serve civic and social needs in a transparent and accountable way. Public purpose media is not simply about reach or popularity; it is about media systems that underpin social cohesion, democratic accountability, and cultural representation, especially for those who are often excluded from mainstream provision.
This distinction matters because the UK already has an established framework for understanding value in public services: the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. This Act requires that publicly funded activity demonstrates measurable benefits for social, economic, and environmental well-being. In other words, public money must come with strings. When government funding or regulatory privilege is provided to media organisations, the return on that investment should be tested against clear and independent social value criteria.
The Radiocentre report positions commercial radio as a public good, but it does so largely on terms defined by the industry itself. This raises two important questions. First, what counts as public purpose in practice? Second, how do we ensure that claims of public value are subject to independent scrutiny rather than self-assessment? Commercial operators, while rightly free to operate in competitive markets, cannot be allowed to “mark their own homework” when it comes to defining public benefit.
Commercial media organisations should be celebrated for their independence and ability to thrive without subsidy. This is a strength, not a weakness, and it speaks to their responsiveness to audience demand. But that independence also means accepting the principle of market risk without calling on protections or subsidies that distort the market, or merely appropriate the language of public benefit. If public money or policy privilege enters the picture, the justification must be robust, transparent, and aligned with the same social value tests that apply to other publicly funded services.
Radiocentre’s report is a welcome contribution to this conversation, but it also underlines the need for a wider national debate. Just as we revisit the BBC Charter every decade to ask what role the BBC plays in modern Britain, we should ask the same of the media ecosystem as a whole:
- What benefit does the public receive from any form of market- or state-driven media?
- What standards of accountability and transparency should apply?
- How do we ensure that media, in all its forms, continues to serve the public interest in a democratic society?
This is the debate that matters. Let’s not leave it to commercial operators or government departments to decide alone. The question of public purpose in media is too important to be settled behind closed doors.