In a recent post on X, Professor Ted Cantle made a simple but crucial observation: “News reporting has to have a stronger element of accountability and engagement with the citizens and residents being served – so that democratic discussion can be handled in a more meaningful manner.” This statement cuts to the heart of the growing crisis in local media and journalism—not just one of declining revenues or disappearing titles, but of trust, responsiveness, and democratic legitimacy.
It’s an issue that’s coming into sharp focus again following the publication of a controversial opinion piece by Nottinghamshire Live, owned by Reach plc. Like many commercial local news providers, Reach operates with limited public accountability. There is no formal structure by which local residents can shape editorial priorities, respond to ongoing coverage beyond the reactive complaints process, or hold corporate newsrooms to account for how they frame sensitive local issues.
That gap matters. When trust in institutions is low and the pressure of social cohesion is high—as it is in cities like Nottingham, Leicester, and beyond—journalistic institutions must do more than performatively claim “community relevance.” They must be seen to engage with local communities, reflect the lived experiences of residents, and offer channels for dialogue—not just consumption.
Professor Cantle, who has long advocated for cohesive communities through his work on interculturalism, is pointing to a systemic problem. News organisations, especially those purporting to serve diverse and complex localities, cannot claim legitimacy if they are not themselves embedded in the communities they report on. That embedding can’t come solely from having reporters “on the patch”—it must include transparent, participatory structures for editorial reflection, public feedback, and civic accountability.
This is where the distinction between audience reach and community accountability becomes vital. Commercial media metrics tell us how many clicks a story receives, but they don’t tell us what civic function it serves, how it is received by different social groups, or whether it contributes to greater understanding and shared purpose.
At Decentered Media, we argue that accountability in media must go beyond regulatory compliance or complaints-handling. It must mean building systems where citizens can critically engage with news narratives, be involved in shaping how stories are told, and contribute to the editorial values that underpin them. It must also mean that media organisations acknowledge their role in civic life—not just as observers or commentators, but as participants in our shared democratic culture.
That might involve citizen advisory panels, civic newsrooms, participatory editorial boards, or localised codes of reporting based on shared principles. It could mean publishing reader charters that go beyond the IPSO code, or using deliberative methods to inform coverage of divisive or complex issues.
Reach plc and other publishers operating under centralised, commercial news models must now reckon with this challenge. The legitimacy of local journalism cannot rest solely on historic brand recognition or SEO dominance. It must be continually earned through openness, humility, and a willingness to be changed by the communities they serve.
Professor Cantle’s message is clear: if news organisations wish to foster meaningful democratic discussion, they must step away from the one-way mirror and invite people in—not just as sources or readers, but as co-creators of public knowledge.