In this episode of the Decentered Media podcast, I speak with Professor Agnes Gulyas and Simona Bisiani about their report, Challenges and Opportunities for UK Local Media: Insights from Academic Research. Our discussion starts from a simple but important question: what do we now mean by “local media” in a digital environment where the old boundaries of place, reach and audience are no longer clear? The report was written to help bridge the gap between academic research and professional practice, drawing together evidence about the pressures facing local media and the public value it still holds.

One of the most useful contributions of the report is its insistence that local media should not be understood only as a commercial product. The discussion points to several important roles for local media: providing information about a locality, supporting democratic participation, holding power to account, strengthening community cohesion, and preserving community identity and memory. That is a helpful reminder that local media is not simply a content stream. It is part of the civic infrastructure of everyday life. When these functions are weakened, something more than a business model is lost.

The conversation also highlights how difficult it has become to define what “local” means. In the analogue era, local newspapers and local radio had clearer territorial boundaries. In the digital era, those boundaries have become unstable. A story can be written for one town, repackaged for a region, and read anywhere. That might look efficient from a managerial perspective, but it also raises harder questions about representation, relevance and belonging. If regionalisation becomes the default response to economic pressure, whose voices are amplified and whose are flattened out or ignored?

An important theme running through the discussion is that people do not only want information. They want to feel represented. They want stories that reflect their own place and experience, and they often value journalism more when it is produced by people who are recognisably part of that community. This is where localness matters in ways that cannot be reduced to efficiency measures. A service may still deliver information, but if it no longer carries local texture, trust and recognition, it may cease to feel local in any meaningful sense.

Another issue raised in the discussion is that community media is too often left out of policy thinking. Regulation and support mechanisms tend to focus on local journalism in narrow institutional terms, while the wider ecology of local and community media is frequently excluded or treated as marginal. That is a serious problem, because it narrows the range of solutions available. If policy only imagines rescue packages for legacy publishers, it may miss more plural, place-based and participatory forms of media that already exist or could be developed.

The question of sustainability remains unresolved, but the discussion offers some clear lines of thought. The UK has historically shown less willingness than some other countries to intervene institutionally in support of a distressed local media sector. At the same time, there are different possible models of support, including needs-based approaches, publisher support, philanthropic funding and reader revenue. Yet sustainability is not only about finance. It is also about whether there are enough people willing and able to produce local journalism, and whether audiences are prepared to recognise its value and support it over time.

That leads to one of the most important closing points in the conversation: media literacy and discoverability. Too many people now confuse getting information from social platforms with having access to local journalism or community media. They are not the same thing. If local media is to remain viable, people need better ways of understanding why it matters, how it differs from platform chatter, and how to find it easily in a crowded digital environment. Discoverability is not a minor technical issue. It is now central to whether local media can function at all.

What emerges overall is not a nostalgic defence of older media forms, but a call to think more clearly about what local media is for. The discussion suggests that the future will not be secured by clinging to inherited institutional models alone, nor by assuming that platforms and scale will solve everything. The stronger argument is that local media needs to be understood as a public and civic good, shaped by place, participation, trust and relevance. If that is right, then the challenge is not only how to save legacy institutions, but how to create a more plural and resilient local media ecology for the future.

Source