The event attracted 25 MPs and parliamentary staffers who came to hear from independent news publishers in their areas. We were really pleased with the strong, cross-party turnout, which reflects the growing recognition across Parliament that independent local journalism is essential social infrastructure that it is coming under serious threat.

Shortly afterwards, on 17th March, the Government published the Local Media Action Plan, which is an important step towards a viable future for local news. We published our initial assessment of the Action Plan when it launched last week and look forward to working with Government to turn these commitments into action.

The scale of the problem

Conversations at the event focused on the alarming spread of UK news deserts - areas where communities have no access to independent local news. PINF's latest research shows that 4.4 million people across the UK are living in news deserts, with deprived communities hit hardest by recent closures.

Publishers from across the UK kindly gave up their time to share their experiences directly with MPs, demonstrating the positive impact of their work on local communities but also the increasing pressure they are under.

Jonathan Heawood, Executive Director of PINF, said:

The event demonstrated the huge amount of support in Parliament for independent local news. It was great to talk to MPs from around the UK and across the political spectrum about the great work of independent local news providers in their constituencies, the challenges facing the sector and the opportunity to regenerate local news for everyone.

Local journalism is essential social infrastructure

Independent outlets play a crucial role in meeting information needs, but local journalism is not just about reporting the news. Publishers are grounded in the communities they serve, facilitating meaningful community engagement, bringing people together to provide shared experiences and helping inoculate citizens against disinformation.

As Joe Robertson, MP for Isle of Wight East, noted:

Strong local media is so important for scrutinising local decisions and ensuring the public are aware of what is being done in their name... I am pleased to be supporting local media in my junior role in Westminster within the shadow culture, media and sport team.

While he recognised the importance of the diverse media landscape on the Isle of Wight, he acknowledged that due to the encroachment of big tech platforms like Google, the rest of the UK is not so lucky.

The economic challenge

A central topic during the afternoon was the collapse of traditional advertising revenues, once central to the sector, that have largely migrated online. Audience attention and advertising sales revenue is now concentrated in the hands of Google and Meta.

As a result, many local newsrooms have closed or consolidated and there are far fewer journalist jobs than there once were, leaving huge gaps in coverage and contributing to democratic deficit at a local level.

Mohammad Yasin, MP for Bedford, emphasised the importance of quality journalism:

Good journalism is not cheap. It requires time, expertise and dedication. We cannot take local news for granted. It needs proper support, which is why I back calls for an arm’s-length local news fund to strengthen journalism across the UK and to stop the rollback of public notices that help sustain trusted local reporting.

Solutions for a sustainable future

PINF believes that everyone in the UK deserves public interest news that speaks to them, for them and with them. We discussed the following solutions to address the crisis:

• The creation of an independent, arms-length Local News Fund
• Stronger partnerships between the BBC and local publishers
• Protection and reform of public notices as a much-needed revenue stream
• Regulatory action to ensure fairer relationships between publishers and tech platforms

There was clear appetite among MPs to explore these ideas further, with many expressing support for policies that would help sustain and grow independent local journalism.

Taking action to regenerate local news

One thing is clear: the future of local journalism is not just a niche issue for media policy wonks, it is a matter of democratic importance.

As communities across the UK face the loss of trusted local reporting, the risks are significant: reduced scrutiny, increased misinformation and weaker civic engagement. But with growing political support and a clear set of policy proposals on the table, there is also a real opportunity to reverse the decline.

We look forward to further engagement with Media APPG members to make sure the Government's Local Media Action Plan supports independent local journalism for the communities who depend on it.

We warmly welcome the Government’s Action Plan, which bears a striking similarity to several of our Commission’s recommendations, particularly on funding, advertising and public notice reform. There are also important details that we look forward to clarifying over the coming months.

The PINF Local News Commission called on the Government to underwrite a Local News Fund of at least £15m a year over ten years. Instead, the Government has committed £12m over two years. This is less than we recommended, but a hell of a lot better than nothing. And as Lisa Nandy said, it is ‘the start – not the end point.’

At PINF, we are in advanced discussions with philanthropic funders and social investors who may agree to match the Government’s financial commitment, so that every pound invested in new models of local news can go twice as far.

We also called for tax incentives for donors, advertisers and subscribers to support local news. There are no signs of any such incentives in the strategy. However, the Government has pledged to invest more of its own advertising budget in local news, including in smaller, independent and hyperlocal outlets that have previously been excluded, and to support such outlets to access commercial advertising.

I’ve written before about the shortcomings of the Government’s approach to advertising and PINF has held many frustrating meetings with the Government’s former media buying agency over the years, so we’re very glad to see a new and more positive approach here.

We called on the Government to support a new local news workforce strategy to ensure that local journalists are drawn from all backgrounds and have the full range of skills they need, from AI to community engagement. Again, they haven’t gone as far or as fast as we would have liked, but they have announced ‘a campaign in schools in North-West England to inspire young people from all backgrounds to pursue local media careers.’

I hope that this campaign shows young people the many ways of generating local news – not just working for legacy papers but also setting up new independent outlets and using digital platforms to create and curate local news.

We called for a new settlement between big tech firms and local news, using the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA) 2024 to ensure that data and revenues are shared equitably between big tech firms and local news providers. More recently, alarmed that the DMCCA is failing in its purpose, we have proposed further legislation to compel big tech platforms to carry local public interest journalism.

Lisa Nandy’s announcement was quiet on this front, but the published strategy says that the Government ‘will support industry in exploring voluntary options for making trustworthy news more prominent online (at both local and national level) and will consider further action should this become necessary.’ Given that there is almost zero likelihood of big tech firms voluntarily agreeing to this, I think we could just cut to the chase and start urgently exploring further regulation.

We called for a new settlement between local government and local news, building on the public notice system to find new and effective ways to inform and empower local communities. The Government say that they will soon launch a consultation on the future of public notices, to understand how they can ‘best work for communities and effective journalistic scrutiny.’ They are also preparing to launch a Regional Media Forum in the West of England to pilot new working relationships between local news providers and local public services.

Finally, we called for a new settlement between the BBC and local news, building on the Local Democracy Reporting Service to ensure that every local community benefits from engaging and high-quality journalism. We set out these ideas in detail in our response to the recent consultation on the future of the BBC Charter, and we are glad that the published strategy includes a clear commitment to ‘ensure … that the BBC does more to support the diversity of local media and news services in the UK over the next ten years, for the benefit of all audiences.’

So, the Local Media Strategy has something important to say about each of the six themes of our Local News Commission. Of course, we are impatient to see the Government go even further to regenerate local news. We know how important this is to the future of British communities and our democracy as a whole.

At the same time, we are thrilled to see – for the first time – a joined-up response to the challenges facing local news providers and local communities, and we look forward to working with the Government and other stakeholders to turn these commitments into action.

Jonathan Heawood is Executive Director of the Public Interest News Foundation.

We’re not alone. News funders have sprung up all over the world in recent years. So last autumn, we commissioned Greater Community Media to research what works in other countries and how we could transfer those lessons to the UK.

Greater Community Media (GCM) has produced an immensely valuable piece of research that will guide PINF and a vanguard of UK funders through the process of building the Fund. And I imagine will guide plenty of people outside the UK too.

To produce the report, Lucas Batt from GCM spoke to people from ten news funds from Canada to Brazil and France to North Carolina — and reviewed all the documentation he could find on them. Those funds have collectively raised the equivalent of £560m to invest in the long-term revival of quality, sustainable local news.

Below I mention a few findings that stuck out for me, but for best results, I’d recommend reading the full-fat version of the report — or, if you only have ten minutes, the executive summary.

The case studies show diverse funders coming together to support local news by pooling resources into a single fund. They recognise that through a coordinated approach, and shared strategy, a journalism fund can have a meaningful impact on a challenge as serious as that faced by local news.

Each fund recognises that support for news is support to improve lives through community impact (better public understanding of local issues, better representation of community voices, better trust, better cohesion), economic impact (effective public services, stronger local businesses and high streets) and democratic impact (better scrutiny, more fact-based facilitated debate, better civic participation and voter turnout). Whatever issue or topic area you care about — from health to education to climate — news and information affect it.

Some funds are phenomenally successful — with one fund generating $3.80 in new sustainable local revenue for every $1 invested in the newsrooms they support. (PINF believes that there is sufficient room for growth in the UK for a similar story to be realised here.)

Funds are remarkably similar — the world is coalescing around evidence-based approaches that work: catalytic funding, coaching, peer learning, a focus on revenue development and a layer of infrastructure for tech, legal, talent, training and networking.

One fund can’t solve all the challenges to ensuring that all communities are served with quality local news. There will continue to be a need for good policymaking and legislating to incentivise public support and make big tech play fair. And there will be places of deprivation whereby efforts to grow revenue will be tough. There will be risks — some newsrooms will fail — and there will need to be patience as change emerges. But these examples of funders around the world are showing that real progress can be made towards the regeneration of local news.

The full report details the approaches to pooling funds, to decision-making and the importance of firewalls, the various theories of change, the different types of support for newsrooms, and it gives ten in-depth case studies of journalism funds to learn from.

We're very grateful to GCM for their hard work — and to the funders of our work to develop a UK Local News Fund, in particular Press Forward, Paul Hamlyn Foundation and Indigo Trust. This work will be invaluable in providing a headstart for the UK Local News Fund. Onwards!

You can join us live online to hear from Lucas and two funders featured in the report on Tuesday 17th March at 2pm UK time. Sign up below.

Funding the Future of Local News: lessons from journalism funds around the world · Zoom · Luma

After decades of local news in decline, and the impact this has had on communities, help is finally coming. Recognising that local news is essential social…

Lucas Batt

PINF welcomes local news partnership presented by BBC Green Paper 

The Public Interest News Foundation (PINF) welcomes the requirement in the Government’s Green Paper, published today, for the BBC to complement high-quality local news providers, including through partnerships, so that the public can benefit from a thriving and diverse local news market. 

PINF is pleased to see a strong commitment to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), which has been reporting on important stories since 2017, and urges the Government and the BBC to enhance the LDRS and introduce a new Local News Commissioning Fund, to support local news providers to report on communities across the UK in partnership with the BBC. 

The BBC’s Royal Charter is due for renewal at a moment when the BBC, along with the whole news industry, is facing a combination of political, economic, social and technological challenges.   

This creates a pivotal moment for the BBC to reconsider its relationship with local journalism, to collaborate with truly local news providers who are led by, for and with the communities they serve, and put the information needs of local communities before all other interests.  

Building new relationships with professional local news outlets will allow the BBC to connect with a far greater range of audiences and engender trust in a way that is becoming impossible for national news brands.   

Reframing the BBC’s role as partner and facilitator of the local news ecosystem will rebuild public trust, revitalise local democracy and ensure a sustainable future for public interest journalism in the UK.   

At PINF, we look forward to developing the ideas set out today in more detail in the coming months.  

Jonathan Heawood, Executive Director of PINF said: “Charter renewal presents a unique opportunity to shore up access to trustworthy local information and rebuild trust with UK communities. The BBC can achieve this by becoming a genuine partner and enabler of a diverse local news ecosystem by investing in the Local Democracy Reporting Service and launching a new Local News Commissioning Fund to ensure that diverse, community-centred journalism speaks to, for and with everyone in the UK.” 

Notes to editors  

The Public Interest News Foundation (PINF) is a charity on a mission to regenerate local news. We believe that everyone in the UK should benefit from public interest news that speaks to them, for them and with them. PINF’s advocacy and research is shaped by our network of over 100 local, independent, public interest news providers from all corners of the UK: from Devon to Shetland, Newry to Caerphilly. 

Press contact 

Jonathan Heawood, Executive Director, jonathan@publicinterestnews.org.uk  

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be introducing each of the three pillars of the new campaign, ensuring that: the BBC works in partnership with local news, big tech treat local news providers fairly and local authorities support local news providers.  

The first focus of the Local News Campaign is on local authorities – starting with an updated system of public notices. We’ve created a new briefing calling on decision-makers to reform public notices, increasing public access to local information and supporting local news providers.  

Reform public notices: increase public access to local information and support local news providers

Download & Read

Public notices inform local communities about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and other issues. They serve two purposes: ensuring that people are aware of important information about their community and providing a reliable source of revenue for local news providers. 

Local news has seen a dramatic shift in recent years, with circulations falling year on year. In 2024, more than half of printed local papers had a circulation of less than 5,000. The contrast is stark when compared to 2014, as the Manchester Evening News circulation has fallen from 66,521 to 6,173 and the Liverpool Echo circulation has fallen from 61,902 to 10,295. 

The fact is that the vast majority of people in the UK are not getting their news from the printed press anymore. On the flip side, there has been an explosion over the last ten years of digital-only or digital-first local news publications.  

PINF’s most recent Index found that the average local, independent news provider attracted 489,268 unique users in 2024 - an increase of 40% from 2023. Across the UK, digital outlets established in the last decade or so are connecting with growing audiences, including The Bristol Cable, the Waltham Forest Echo, the Manchester Mill, Greater Govanhill, VIEWDigital and many others.  

In an age of media abundance, these titles are providing British communities with shared understandings, inoculating local people against misinformation and disinformation, creating pride in place and promoting civic participation across the country.  

So then local online news outlets seem like the perfect home to bring together local people with public notices, increasing citizens’ engagement with civic decision-making – right? 

Well, as things stand, the definition of ‘newspaper’ that is used to determine the placing of public notices comes from the Newspaper and Libel Registration Act 1881, which states:  

‘The word “newspaper” shall mean any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations therein printed for sale, and published in England or Ireland periodically, or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days between the publication of any two such papers, parts, or numbers.’ 

This means that online outlets are locked out of publishing these notices, limiting their reach and cutting them off from a reliable source of revenue. 

Clearly, change is needed for public notices to reach their intended audience and fulfil their function in the local news ecosystem. 

It’s not a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul - printed notices should absolutely remain for those without access to the internet - but given the huge amount of change in news habits and ecosystems in the 144 years since the Newspaper Act of 1881, a much wider audience would be reached by placing notices online, too. 

This would also be of huge benefit to councils. A formalised tendering process for contracts should result in savings, as outlets can competitively price their bids, resulting in a cheaper and fairer system for all parties. 

So, what are we doing about it? 

One potential stepping stone towards righting this wrong is a set of amendments that Lord Lucas has proposed to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, currently making its way through the House of Lords.  

In a move that we hope will be the beginning of a shift in the relationship between local news and local authorities, these amendments would update the legal definition of newspaper, allowing local councils to place public notices relating to planning and infrastructure with eligible online news outlets. 

If you want to get involved in the Local News Campaign or find out more about our work, please get in touch.

We relayed the question to the network of indie news providers we host and, as always, they didn’t hold back. We fed their responses back to DCMS and thought it worth sharing these here, too.   

1. Capacity 

The biggest obstacle to newsgathering and the provision of local news in the public interest was felt to be capacity. With greater revenues, newsrooms said they could do much more news gathering to better meet the needs of communities.  

‘We have to turn down important investigative work most weeks, really unjust stuff about fire watches, private parking scams, illegal planning, failing council officers…We tell readers we are here for them and then often have to say we don’t have the resources to investigate things when they do turn to us.’ 

‘I also have examples of concerned citizens getting in touch pleading with us to investigate certain issues but having to turn them down because we simply don’t have the resource.’ 

Several publishers pointed to the public notice regime as a blocker on growth in the sector, by incentivising print regardless of original content or audience and preventing independent newsrooms from winning public notice contracts.  

‘Outdated rules mean only print publications can carry public notices, directing taxpayer money to underperforming titles while limiting public access to important information.’  

As well as challenges to revenue growth, several other obstacles to newsgathering were mentioned.  

2. Poor responses from press officers 

The providers in our network are largely local news providers, so this mostly related to local government, including parish councils.  

This included responding late to enquiries: ‘taking days or weeks to come back to enquiries’; ‘taking an age to get a reply’.  

3. Lack of access to public meetings – or decisions not being made in public 

Some providers felt councils were deliberately avoiding openness and making it harder to learn what’s going on. 

’The council used to withhold all papers attached to their meeting agendas until I pointed out that it was their statutory duty to include them… Now they publish it all but at the very last moment they possibly can, not giving us time to investigate any issues raised or encourage residents who want to have a say to attend the meeting.’ 

One provider pointed to councillors leaving public meetings to make decisions behind closed doors:  

‘So much of council meetings [is] held in committee or [we hear] ‘I’ll discuss that with you after the meeting, councillor”.’ 

4. Poor local government websites 

Providers reported that it was often hard to find information on local government websites.  

‘The ease of access to information on council websites is a biggie – finding planning cases, meeting minutes (especially for historical meetings), published decisions, strategy documents, etc. is near-impossible at times. If information they already have to publish was easier to access, there would be far less back-and-forth with comms teams, FOIs, etc...’

One provider commended councils’ livestreaming efforts as ‘a real help’, but worried that parish councils — which could become more important following the shake-up of local government — had no capacity for this.  

‘Most parish councils currently have no facilities or media functions at all, so local democracy coverage will be limited.’ 

5. Lack of access to press cards  

Availability of press cards — which allow journalists to prove their credentials, such as to attend press conferences — has long been an issue bouncing around the PINF network’s Whatsapp group.  

‘When we first launched, we were denied entry to full council meetings due to a lack of press cards…the entire system is controlled by broadcasters and legacy media.’ 

‘I was an NUJ member and had a press card for many years… in local newspapers and as a freelancer overseas. I cannot obtain one now because journalism makes up none of my income, ironically because there is no funding.’ 

6. Cost of Land Registry searches  

Understanding who owns land is a useful tool for local investigative reporting. The Land Registry recently put the price of access to a title deed up from £3 to £7 — a 133% increase. If a story requires several searches — for example, if a rogue landlord is thought to own several properties in a street, or a parade of shops — then this can add up quickly, especially given that resources are already very limited in local news. 

‘The Land Registry search was a very useful, low-cost resource for investigations, fact-checking and sometimes a speculative enquiry for something that looked odd (who does own that odd bit of land that someone wants to build something strange on?). A 133% price rise has now made it a tougher option for small newsrooms (and I suspect large ones with their cost controls too).’

Thanks to all the news providers who offered their thoughts for this research. PINF is looking forward to continuing to work with DCMS to build the evidence base for assertive action in the UK Government’s local media strategy.  

Next week, we launch the report of the Local News Commission, which will offer a multi-step approach to regenerate local news for communities across the UK. Stay tuned! 

Is there something critical that we missed in this list of obstacles? Get in touch via Bluesky or email: contact@publicinterestnews.org.uk

Google is the world’s dominant search engine, with a market share in the UK of 94 per cent in March 2024 (Statista, 2024). We can all appreciate how easy the platform has made it for us to access information, educate ourselves on important topics, find out what’s going on in the world around us and connect to our communities.

However, Google’s monopoly on news search is directly contributing to the collapse of traditional media business models. Google denies this, arguing that it helps news providers by sending traffic to their websites, allowing them to generate revenue from ad sales (Google, 2020), but hundreds of local outlets have closed in the last two decades, leaving more than four million people in the UK living in news deserts.

Users want trustworthy, independent news in their searches

PINF’s new study, conducted by FehrAdvice, investigates the true value of news to Google in the UK. We surveyed 1484 people in the UK to accurately quantify the size and value of news media to the tech giant. In our experiment, we showed participants different simulations of Google and instructed them to make certain searches to test how people search with and without news content.

Find out more about our methodology.

We began by asking participants how they inform themselves about current topics and found that 82 per cent use search engines, far more than use other sources such as social media, news apps or print media. The size of Google’s market share shows that it is by far the most frequently used news search service.

When searching Google for information, we found that users value trust, ease of understanding, quality and independence of results most highly in their chosen source of information. Almost 9 in 10 (87 per cent) said it’s important that the information is objective. More than 8 in 10 (83 per cent) said it’s important that the information shown comes from multiple sources. 8 in 10 (80 per cent) said it’s important that their search results are relevant to their inquiry.

Users who looked at the version of Google without news media consistently rated search results lower by these metrics than those looking at a version of Google with news media. Our research shows that professional news content supplies the top qualities that make search results valuable. The inclusion of local media in search results in particular improves users’ perception of independence.

Google needs news

When asked outright, two thirds of participants stated that they prefer Google with news results. 66 per cent of users said they prefer Google search results with national and local media included. When asked how much they would be willing to pay per month for Google search (if they had to pay), participants were willing to pay 34 per cent more for Google with news (£5.09) than without (£3.79). This is a good indicator of the value that news content adds to users’ overall perception of Google, and therefore its brand value.

Google is able to provide more valuable results because of the work of news publishers. However, the value that news generates for Google isn’t shared fairly. News providers are responsible for creating and verifying news content, they employ the journalists, investigate the stories and carry the legal risks. Their work contributes to Google’s profits, but Google doesn’t share the profits equitably with them.

A broken ecosystem

We observed that 4 in 10 users stay within the Google ecosystem after searching for something. People remain on Google rather than clicking through to news media because the answer can be found there directly. Two thirds of users (67 per cent) stop reading after the headline, having gathered the news they were looking for in their information search. Of those who did click on an external link, only 15 per cent were to media outlets.

So, Google is creating negligible amounts of additional traffic to news sites, contrary to its oft-repeated claim, and news providers are stuck. They need to have appealing headlines to get to the top of Google’s search algorithm, but these headlines are so good that people don’t need to click through to the website. Google’s new AI tool is compounding this problem, amalgamating news stories for users at the top of the search page to provide answers without even having to scroll.

Google is clearly dominant in an uncompetitive market. The UK Competition and Markets Authority is investigating Google’s strategic market status, taking its first steps towards regulating the company under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act. Ongoing legal proceedings in the US, Canada and EU are investigating Google and other tech giants’ anticompetitive practices. In the US in 2024, a court found that Google is in violation of antitrust laws due to its monopoly over search, and the Department of Justice has demanded that Google sell its web browser, Chrome (BBC, 2024).

In Canada, Google is being sued by the Competition Bureau, who allege that Google has “abused its dominance position” in relation to its advertising tools (BBC, 2024). In the EU, the European Commission found in 2019 that Google blocked websites from using other advertising brokers, ensuring its own AdSense platform was dominant (BBC, 2024).

Such is its dominance, that in our experiments, despite consistently higher satisfaction ratings when using the version of Google that included news results, a majority of users said they would still return to Google even if the experience had not been satisfactory. This is the living proof of Google’s monopoly position, which is distorting the digital news economy, damaging publishers, and ultimately harming consumers, who suffer from the loss of trusted and trustworthy sources of information, particularly local news.

It’s time to split the bill

Google search is valuable because users are granted access to a wide range of news content, from both large news brands and small, independent news providers. Therefore, the annual value of news to big tech should be shared fairly between all news providers in the UK - large and small, corporate and independent.

Google generated £16.7 billion from search advertising in the UK in 2023 (IAB Europe, 2022), of which 55 per cent, £8.5 billion, comes from information searches (Höppner & Piepenbrock, 2022). News adds value to information searches 66 per cent of the time, meaning that Google generates £5.6 billion with the help of news media content. If this value was split 60:40 with Google, then news providers as a whole would be entitled to a revenue share of £2.2bn – for 2023 alone (Johann et al., 2023). If we factor in the previous years in which Google built up its dominant market position, we could be looking at a total bill of many billions of pounds.

Without independent local news providers, Google would be less trustworthy, diverse, relevant and ultimately less valuable. Therefore, the annual revenue from news to Google should be shared fairly between providers large and small.

References

• BBC (2024) Google suggests fixes to its search monopoly https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2kxpn2k08do Accessed 16th January 2025.
• BBC (2024) Canada watchdog sues Google over alleged anti-competitive conduct https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7n1rx04l1o Accessed16th January 2024.
• BBC (2024) EU court rules Google must pay €2.4bn fine https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw3e1pn741o Accessed 16th January 2024.
• Google (2020) Open Letter to Australians https://about.google/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/ Accessed 19th December 2025.
• Höppner & Piepenbrock (2022) Digitale Werbung und das Google Ökosystem p 264.
• IAB Europe (2022) AdEx Benchmark 2021 Report, p 43.
• Johann et al. (2023) The value of journalistic content for the Google search engine in Switzerland pp 38-40.
• Statista Research Department (2024) Leading search engines in the UK 2024, by market share https://www.statista.com/statistics/280269/market-share-held-by-search-engines-in-the-united-kingdom/ Accessed 16th January 2025.

As the paper's Operations Manager, Joe McCann, says, by cutting off communication, 'the council is evading scrutiny and potentially controlling the flow of information, which is not just a concern for us as journalists but for the public as well.' 

According to Wiltshire Council, 'the Melksham News reported on criticism of the council for its policy of only using paid-for newspapers to advertise public notices... following this, Wiltshire Council halted all communications with the newspaper, declining to send press releases or respond to any enquiries.' Whether or not there's more to this story than meets the eye, it's hard to fathom any reasonable justification for a council refusing to engage with a local news outlet. 

The relationship between local councils and local journalists has been on PINF's radar for a little while now. Long-term readers may remember our blog spelling out the case for public notice reform last year. 

More recently, PINF and independent think tank New Local invited local council communications professionals and local news providers to participate in a workshop together. Our aim was to foster new ideas around the future of local media and explore the relationship between local news outlets and councils, with a view to ensuring sustainable local information ecosystems in every UK community.  

The workshop explored questions around the barriers stopping news providers and council communications officers from working well together and how local councils and local journalists can work together to make sure local residents are fully informed and empowered.  

There was general agreement that the relationship between local media and communications officers needs to be improved in many areas. The group recommended building stronger face-to-face relationships between journalists and communications professionals based on the shared goal of serving citizens. They also suggested co-producing guidelines to build understanding on both sides about deadlines, sign-off processes and standards bodies. 

On a structural level, there were suggestions for broader changes that may require change to legislation or policy. For example, participants discussed the burgeoning role of Documenters in the United States, citizens who are trained up to report on the goings-on of their local government operations.  

Back to public notices, could reform to the system see local news providers receive revenue from councils and councils get a cheaper deal on their ads? Could a degree of separation between communications professionals and their council offices hand greater power to communications officers to coordinate news, link up with communities and build trust in their local area?  

So, how are we taking this forward? PINF is holding our third meeting of the Local News Commission tomorrow morning. Commissioners will be taking note of these recent  developments, which will form part of their deliberations towards recommendations for a thriving local news sector.  

As always, we encourage anyone with an interest in this issue, whether you work in local news or local government, to get in touch with us and let us know your perspectives! 

Why did you establish Untelevised, and what is the platform’s main mission? 

We launched in 2019 with a visit to Nijmegen in the Netherlands, a city hailed as the ‘Havana of Holland’ – brimming with imaginative projects that showcase alternatives to our current capitalist, consumerist society. We visited nomadic communities living from dumpster diving, compost toilets and water butt systems; cafes serving free meals sourced from surplus food; a bar run entirely by volunteers to raise money for the homeless, and much more. In documenting these projects and working with people who did not have the media skills, equipment or capacity to document themselves, we were able to garner solidarity for their causes, whilst sharing practical examples for others to follow in their own lives. 

We continued this on-the-ground approach – spearheading projects like the #SaveGranville campaign to stop the closure of a Granville Community Kitchen in North London – for a few months until lockdown hit and we were no longer able to visit and film projects. So, in June 2020, we launched Untelevised: The Podcast to provide a resource for anyone interested in social change, to learn, discuss and share the struggles, the wins, the possibilities. Each episode is aimed at taking people along their journey; from the initial penny drop moment; to the deeper dive into the questions that arise; to offering practical solutions and signposting to ongoing actions they can take and projects they can support. Now four seasons deep, we've already covered topics from 'What is Capitalism?' and ‘What is Socialism?’ to ‘Is food political?’ and 'Can consumerism ever be ethical?' Our guests have included the CEO & Founder of Choose Love; the Chair of Trussell Trust Foodbank Network; award-winning journalists like Anjan Sundaram; and organisations exploring more ethical practices, like London Renters’ Union, Ethical Consumer, and Land in Our Names.

Our collaboration allows us to draw upon our combined expertise in media production and direct connection with communities on the margins. Through democratic and accessible citizen journalism, we aim to create content that highlights that social justice is not only possible but can even be enjoyable. For everyone who feels in their bones that society needs a drastic overhaul but doesn’t know where to start. We hope they might start with us.

What does citizen journalism mean and look like to you? 

Technology is transforming the traditionally exclusionary media landscape, making way for citizens, or ‘ordinary’ people to document what they see, hear and think in ways that would have been impossible just a couple of decades ago. More people than ever before are playing an active role in  collecting, reporting, analysing and sharing news and information. 

We set up Untelevised as we felt there was a disconnect between the people doing the actual, frontline, social justice work and those producing media and telling the stories. We feel strongly about what ordinary people, with no obligation, job title, salary etc are doing every day to fill the gaps left by governments and statutory services. They are showing, through their actions, that they believe the world should be a fairer and more compassionate place. This is admirable, but it shouldn't be the case. The name ’Untelevised' is inspired by Gil Scott-Heron’s liberation song “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.” For us, the revolution is not a single moment or act but something that happens through continued acts over time. We are televising it by documenting these acts that do not traditionally gain mainstream attention, the 'untelevised lives' so to speak. 

A crucial tenet of this, for us, must also be teaching and encouraging critical thinking. We acknowledge that the democratisation of the media space also comes with over saturation of content. There is a responsibility to teach people the skills to decipher the information that they are consuming and to encourage them to be comfortable in continually challenging the narratives they are presented with. Rather than promoting censorship or ‘cancel culture,’ we feel society is best served if we ‘ban nothing but question everything’. 

This is a topic that we feel passionately about, so much so that we dedicated a whole episode of our podcast to the concept of citizen journalism, listen to ‘So, should media be democratic?’ here.

What lessons do you feel can be learned from your approach to working with communities, rather than covering their stories from a detached perspective? 

At Untelevised, we very much feel that we work with media rather than in the media, using it as a tool for social change. We were drawn to media as it not only allows us to capture the world as it is but also provides audiences with the opportunity to comment on the issues that affect them and, through discussion, make changes to them. 

Traditionally, production processes have a clear division of power – the ‘journalist’ behind the camera (or microphone or pen) and the ‘contributor’ in front of it. The contributors' involvement begins only when the camera starts rolling and ends as soon as it stops. 

Through our work at the grassroots level, we know that communities are experts by experience, so we have decided to take a co-production approach to content creation.

This approach is rooted in an exchange of skills and knowledge between us and the communities that we feature. So, whilst we might share our technical skills, equipment, storytelling craft and professional contacts with communities, we gain access to people close to an issue with a deep connection to them. This allows us to bring unheard stories and perspectives to the forefront, increasing awareness of issues that might be missed or underrepresented by mainstream producers and ultimately allowing media to be used to fight for social good.

Importantly, this sharing of power allows us to rebuild trust in media as a medium and its place in social progress. Often marginalised or underrepresented communities have a negative association with the media space, rooted in repeat misrepresentation and disempowerment. These failures have resulted in fractured relationships and a deep mistrust in the traditional function of the press as a pillar of democracy. A co-production approach creates a system of accountability between us as producers and the communities we are capturing. And, we feel, returns us somewhat to this mission.

Tell us more about your approach to covering inequality – why do you think it’s important to focus on deep-rooted and systemic issues, rather than looking at trending topics or responding reactively to the news cycle? 

We don’t deal with trending topics or current events in isolation but aim to always tackle issues systematically, looking at root causes for why something has come to be. We know that most of the things we see in the news cycle are just different manifestations, or consequences of this systemic inequality. Focusing solely on this feels like a doctor only reacting to the symptoms rather than the causes of an illness, and then being surprised when it isn't cured. We believe that people will just keep hearing these different versions of the same systemic issue and still not feel more educated about why this might be happening. They will just feel angry, or scared, or exhausted, without any resources for how to deal with it – and may even just choose to switch off from the news altogether.

Reacting to trending topics is also completely unsustainable for us. We’re a small project, and if we had to be reactive to the news cycle, we’d collapse. There are news outlets that are made for this and are equipped to do this much more effectively than we ever could. We do not wish to compete with this existing infrastructure. Where we feel we’re best placed is to spend time gathering those deeper and less visible stories, which other news outlets don't have the relationships – or the desire – to access. And with just one of those pieces, someone might come to understand, and be able to better process, the more mainstream news stories.

For example, to us, the recent riots and violence around the UK in July and August 2024 are clear consequences of years of austerity, anti-immigration and racist policies and narratives from politicians, and the erosion of community within civil society. Prior to the riots, Revoke (one half of Untelevised) had been experiencing months of Home Office raids on asylum hotels – often as frightening as the attacks by rioters. Revoke had been organising against the government’s abhorrent plan to send humans to Rwanda. These riots were not surprising. They were inevitable. 

We’d want that to be the story, so that the public can see why things happen the way they do, and therefore feel that there are ways to combat and undo this far-right extremism, rather than just feel scared, confused, or angry about it. 

When I was working at gal-dem, I never wanted audiences to feel bereft or powerless after engaging with an article that highlights inequality or injustice – instead, we wanted our audiences to feel empowered to act and create meaningful change. Does that chime with your work, and the ways in which you hope your audiences will engage with it?  

This is the most important part of Untelevised, and why we wanted to establish the platform in the first place. We all know that one of the biggest rebuttals to any attempts at challenging or changing society, is ‘but what’s the alternative?’ For many people, who aren’t veteran activists or already working with social causes in some way, that can be enough to discourage and disempower them. People often have limited time, resources and energy outside of their jobs and other commitments, so unless they can see tangible solutions to get involved with, they are likely to disconnect and give up.

This is why we end all of our productions – from podcasts to mini-documentary features – with a ‘Share’ section. This is where our guests, or projects we’re featuring, give the audience actual tips on how they can get involved with this issue we’re exploring. This might be a list of organisations to support; campaigns to back; petitions to sign; letter templates for MPs; boycotts to back etc.

If you want to join us in this search for solutions, you can find us at www.untelevised.tv and @untelevised_tv. The Podcast is available on all streaming platforms under ‘Untelevised: The Podcast’.

Fisayo Fadahunsi is a Multimedia Producer. She is the Founder and Managing Director of Filmanthropy and Co-Founder of Untelevised. Mona Bani is the Founder and Managing Director of Revoke CIC and Co-Founder of Untelevised. She also consults funders and the wider migration sector.

This article is part of People-Powered Storytelling, a new collaborative series showcasing the transformative impact of community-centred media initiatives in the UK. Read more about the series, and the other contributions that are part of it, here. 

Without that introduction, my career and life would likely have taken an entirely different shape. I might not even have gotten a start in journalism at all. I didn’t have any connections to the media industry, and had little concept of what an internship was or how it all worked. Being the first in my family to go to university and coming from a dual heritage, working-class background, everything felt new and intimidating – until I found gal-dem, and felt like I had found a space to tell the stories I wanted to with like-minded friends and collaborators; a space of belonging; a space that presented a reimagination of the media's future. 

I am sure that this experience will resonate with many journalists, storytellers and creatives of my generation, all coming from underrepresented backgrounds and first cutting their teeth at gal-dem. It was a platform born out of frustration with the current state of British media, coupled with the ambition to do better. It was a publication that took a chance on newcomers, with a generosity of spirit that is now all too rare. And it was part of an ecosystem of fellow projects seeking to amplify the stories of those so often spoken for and over, including Black Ballad, Amaliah, Polyester and more. 

Fundamental changes are here

The same year that gal-dem was founded, a survey by City University London found that the British journalism industry was 94% white, 86% university-educated and 55% male. The NCTJ’s 2023 Diversity in Journalism Report’s latest figures note that 88% of journalists are from white ethnic groups, 72% are from the highest social classes, and 59% are male. Although both surveys examined slightly different metrics, their overall results show that diversity in British journalism has not really fundamentally shifted over a seven year period. 

But so much else about the industry has changed during this time. One example that interests me from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism’s 2024 Digital News Report is that alongside traditional news brands and journalists, people are increasingly turning to commentators, influencers and young news creators, particularly on YouTube and TikTok, to find their news. 

This shift not only speaks to the ways that news consumption is changing, but the ways that news production is changing in an industry that is often not only inaccessible, but inhospitable for journalists from underrepresented backgrounds. The barriers to entering the newsroom are becoming too insurmountable for people to break in. It’s entirely logical then, that individuals and groups are rejecting traditional newsrooms and instead are turning to their own creative platforms and ways of storytelling, empowered by the technology to do so in ever-more innovative ways. 

Take Diet Paratha and Black Lives Matter UK, who were covering the racist riots across Britain earlier in the summer with speed and accuracy via their Instagram accounts. These collectives are community-led, and in constant conversation with that community, understanding their needs, interests and passions with depth and nuance. 

I see a similar energy with the media platforms represented in this project who are deeply embedded within their communities, be it in Bristol or Glasgow, led by young people, those with lived experiences of homelessness, or Gypsy Roma and Traveller communities. It is these publications and platforms who are doing the hard work to earn the attention and trust that has been lost. Genuine and authentic collaboration and skill-sharing across the sector could help amplify these initiatives; such as co-production workshops, platform takeovers and joint community engagement projects. 

Creating routes upwards

gal-dem’s work to nurture new talent was crucial, with specific junior roles supported by funding and non-profit partnerships, including Lankelly Chase who have supported this project. Initiatives, schemes and roles designed to support Black journalists and journalists of colour entering the industry through ‘conventional’ routes have increased and gained more attention in recent years, and rightly so. But fostering talent at the entry-level is just one piece of the puzzle. 

A 2022 report found that “women of colour are severely underrepresented or altogether missing from editorial roles in the UK” and “are experiencing extraordinary levels of exclusion and remain invisible within news organisations and the news industry, as leaders and as protagonists in news stories”. This is reflected in the experiences of Black journalists and journalists of colour leaving the industry due to burnout, layoffs, racism and generally feeling unsupported in workplaces that often do not value their perspectives at the senior level. 

To truly address these issues of retention and upwards progression, newsrooms – and their funders – must invest in the care of their staff throughout the growth of their careers, rather than abdicating from this responsibility or thinking the work is only done at the junior level. 

Supporting storytelling sustainably

The last few years have seen a deluge of closures in the independent media space, particularly affecting publications often described as ‘feminist media’ (I write that in quotation marks as although I understand its usage, I always feel this phrase is a bit pigeon-hole-y). This of course includes gal-dem in 2023, alongside Wear Your Voice in 2021, Bitch Media in 2022, and recently Aurelia earlier in 2024. As Ananya Ray recently wrote for Feminism in India, “independent feminist media organisations have a hard time surviving on their own.”

It was simultaneously upsetting and comforting in the final weeks of gal-dem to be connected with other former newsroom managers from different parts of the world who had also experienced the closure of their publications. I was grateful for their support and guidance, as well as angry that we had all been through the same painful experience of saying goodbye to our beloved projects. 

Over the last year, there have been several success stories when it comes to membership-driven models of community and local news-oriented media in Britain – take The Bristol Cable’s fantastic recent achievements, or the growth and expansion of Mill Media around the UK, as two positive examples. It can be tempting to transpose this model of growth onto gal-dem, as I have sometimes thought about in hindsight. But to do so is to ignore the realities of economic racial inequalities, where the cost of living crisis has impacted Black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities at higher levels than their white counterparts, according to the New Economics Foundation. 

I am not sure what the answer to the funding conundrum is. The demand for gal-dem’s work clearly was, and in many ways still is, there. But the struggle to identify sources of funding that were both unrestricted and required minimal resource for a small organisation to apply for and manage became too great. I hope the experience can be a lesson for funders about the fragility and uncertainty that many such community-driven projects are facing. 

As I saw in one comment shared upon gal-dem’s closure that has stayed with me, it was a place that nurtured people to become writers, and writers to become editors. And while the publication’s journey was by no means perfect, its impact as a springboard for talent that would fundamentally alter British journalism, storytelling and culture at large is immeasurable. 

Despite the challenges, I remain an optimist. There are publications, projects and platforms that are still continuing the work, in the same spirit gal-dem did. This series has been a tangible demonstration of that. But this work must be collective, and must not happen in a vacuum, reliant on the small but mighty shoulders of independent outfits alone. There is no time to waste. 

Suyin Haynes is a freelance journalist, editor and media consultant interested in storytelling at the intersections of identity, culture and underrepresented communities. She is Lecturer in Journalism at City, University of London, and is the creator of two newsletters, Ginkgo Leaves, and the partnership project fragments. 

This article is part of People-Powered Storytelling, a collaborative series showcasing the transformative impact of community-centred media initiatives in the UK. Read more about the series, and the other contributions that are part of it, here.

We, The People’s Newsroom, centre ourselves around the belief that these stories, when generated collectively, are at the heart of the transformational changes our society needs. 

We look around at our current media system and see how far removed it is from providing this for our communities. Our existing media systems often make problems worse, rather than helping solve them. The business model of commercial – rather than public – gain isn’t working. Legacy journalism continues to lack diversity, and that’s played a significant role in amplifying discrimination, inequality and harm. Together, these foster conditions in which information is partial and incomplete, which in turn leads to poor decisions and outcomes at a societal level. Ultimately, there’s a big gap between the pain and beauty, the frustration and momentum for change and the bubbling hope in our communities, and that which is portrayed and cultivated in the dominant media.  

We know of a different way though, one that we can all be part of. We know it is possible to have a thriving, diverse, locally-and-community-owned-and-led information ecosystem. We believe it is possible to generate values-driven, therapeutic, possibility-oriented and power-building stories. We know that together, we can build a movement that transitions us to an information ecosystem that serves us collectively at local, national and planetary levels. We know this because it's been done before and the seeds and buds of it are all around us.  

The People’s Newsroom started as a project of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as an initiative aimed at unleashing community power through journalism that truly reflects and serves all of us and sparks positive change. It now lives under the umbrella of Opus Independents, a not-for-profit social enterprise which works to contribute upstream solutions to complex system problems.

At the heart of our mission is the centreing of, and leadership from, those who have been harmed by systems of oppression, including by the media itself. We are taking our experiences, stories and knowledge – once excluded or extracted from us – and using them for connection, healing and power building.

We know that to tell stories of what might be possible we first have to start with what's already possible. To seed generative and life-giving stories, we need to work with existing generative and life-giving practices. 

We sought out a small group of mission-led community organisations from across the UK, those we know are currently holding enriching community practices, and explored with them what it might take and what it might mean to create and steward a storytelling commons. One where the new stories we create together can be shared between us and with the world for collective benefit.

We brought together representatives of AM, Civic Square, Greater Govanhill, MAIA, National Theatre Wales and Now Then Magazine to begin to lay the foundations of a storytelling commons and begin practising what story-sharing – not storytelling – might look like.

We spent six months learning from each other lessons on commoning, on infrastructures of care, doughnut economics, generative storytelling, shifting power in journalism, community investment and longevity (what it looks like to tell a story over four years!) and using physical space to not simply serve information gaps but connection ones too.

It led us to create a values system (below) and generate and influence new work, like Now Then’s Honest Conversation series, Right to Thrive series, pieces on shifting wealth, queer Palestinians, neighbourhood mapping and on a community land trust as well.

The result is a foundation of a storytelling practice that we hope to deepen locally while also sharing and growing a community that anyone can be part of. We’ve kicked things off on our digital commons on the AM platform which you can check out, here. 

This, for us, is the future of news. You can help support these efforts by donating to Opus and you can get in touch with us to connect and collaborate at: peoplesnewsroom@weareopus.org

This piece, and the People’s Newsroom, is stewarded by: Shirish Kulkarni, Megan Lucero, Debs Grayson, Tchiyiwe Chihana and James Lock. 

This article is part of People-Powered Storytelling, a new collaborative series showcasing the transformative impact of community-centred media initiatives in the UK. Read more about the series, and the other contributions that are part of it, here. 

Compensation is still outstanding, but Craig’s voice helped make a difference. We know from our work with charities and leaders in the social justice sector that such important voices and perspectives are all too often unheard.

The majority of media coverage lacks the diversity of views and voices of people with direct lived experience of severe disadvantage. We know this to be true from our own work with leaders with lived experience of inequalities. All too often, these leaders shared with us their disempowering experiences of working with the media. They weren’t hearing voices like theirs, they didn’t feel represented, and they didn’t trust journalists, but their lived experiences meant they had expertise that could offer solutions to social injustices. They wanted more support to get their voices heard in the media and around the table with those that could influence change.

The 2018 Civil Society Futures Report proposed that civil society’s key role is to generate a radical shift – putting power in communities’ hands, connecting us better and humanising how we do things. This aligns with our vision at Sounddelivery Media, where we are working towards a world where lived experience voices are at the forefront of public conversation, policy and social change. We collaborate with community leaders and their networks to ensure they have the skills, confidence and platforms to drive this change. 

Through listening to those we work with and their experiences with the media, we felt we were in a position to support these community leaders and effect change. In 2019, we launched our Spokesperson Network – a dynamic community of leaders with lived experience of inequality, united in using their firsthand insights to create positive change in and for their communities. Our first pilot programme was publicly crowdfunded, and then match-funded by two funders. Since that pilot, through receiving multi-year grants, we were able to scale this programme and run the nine-month programme for three years, with future plans to run our next programme in 2025.  

We now work alongside a network of 43 leaders from across England who have completed this programme, working with communities addressing a whole range of social inequalities including suicide prevention, the care system, migration, young people and education, gender equality and more. We provide ongoing training, support, opportunities to speak and influence in the media and civil society, and nurture this large peer support network.  

“I’ve gone from standing in the picket lines trying to shout over a sea of other voices to being able to walk in the front door and have a conversation face to face, valued conversation and they are actually listening.” - Jan Cunliffe JENGbA Spokesperson Network member

Members of our network have spoken on major broadcast news outlets including BBC Newsnight, BBC Radio Four and ITV News, and have appeared in national print newspapers including the Times, the Guardian and Independent. They have reached audiences of millions, sparked conversations and influenced public discourse including influencing storylines in drama. They have become part of policy and advisory discussions, contributing to: All Party Parliamentary Groups and governmental select committees, speaking at Party Conferences and joining advisory panels.

Anna Wardley is CEO of Luna Foundation and has been a Spokesperson Network member since 2022. Luna Foundation a social enterprise dedicated to transforming the support for children affected by suicide. We supported Anna to give a BBC Radio 4 Four Thought talk which was later featured on Radio 4’s programme Pick of the Week. She has also written for Children and Young People Now, Mumsnet and the Portsmouth News about Luna Foundation’s mission and how we can improve support for children who lose a parent or care giver to suicide. 

Since taking part in these media opportunities, Anna has received dozens of communications from people saying it's made them feel able to speak about their experiences. "For me that is just incredible. I have no doubt that that programme will be a springboard for things," she says. "The type of people that would have heard that are people that really can create change."

Another member of our Spokesperson Network, Jan Cunliffe, is the co-founder of JENGbA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association), who won their legal challenge against the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to force them to collect data on race and disability in joint enterprise prosecutions. The CPS data captured in this pilot showed black people are 16 times more likely than white people to be prosecuted under the doctrine. Both Anna and Jan’s experiences show how, when our Spokespeople are equipped with the tools, confidence and the platform, they are able to share their stories and effect change on issues that have personally impacted them.

While there are many high points to doing this work, we have to be honest about the fact that being a small charity comes with its challenges – both for us and our network. There are many different demands on our time. We cannot always work in the reactive, fast-paced way news media requires. The leaders we work with are not always in the right place to respond as quickly as news cycles demand. They are facing severe cuts to their funding affecting their work, the demand for their work is leading to exhaustion and burnout, and they are often facing imposter syndrome or low self confidence due to the ways they have been treated and undervalued.

It takes time to do this work, and to continue building trust between the leaders we work with and journalists, and trust between the leaders and us, too. We are guided by those we work with, use trauma-aware practices and provide holistic support – approaches we feel are fundamental to working with lived experience leaders in an ethical, safe way. 

“The impact of these stories entering the mainstream of political and public debate, to share that space with properly researched and evidenced calls for change, is transformational.” - Giles Edwards, BBC Radio 4

At a time where communities feel politicians and media are not listening to them, which leads to further distrust, diversifying the voices we hear in the media and in rooms with policymakers and politicians is more important than ever. Building capacity for community leaders and organisations can have a transformational effect on their ability to influence change to tackle society’s challenges. Developing their skills and growing their confidence, dovetailed with strategic communications support, gets their voices into spaces where they can drive positive systemic change. And this visibility opens doors to further opportunities. Forming networks of these leaders creates new possibilities for collaboration, collective action, and vital peer support. 

Jude Habib is a BBC trained reporter and producer with over 20 years’ experience of unearthing stories that need to be told. She founded Sounddelivery Media in 2008 to give charities and the people they support the skills and confidence to tell their stories.

This article is part of People-Powered Storytelling, a new collaborative series showcasing the transformative impact of community-centred media initiatives in the UK. Read more about the series, and the other contributions that are part of it, here.

This invitation to the local community to collectively share in the story gathering process is at the heart of the mission of The Community Newsroom, a partnership between The Ferret investigative media coop and Greater Govanhill magazine.

The Community Newsroom opened its doors on a chilly December day back in 2022. But with its cheery bright yellow exterior, the aim was to bring warmth to our surroundings, along with an easier way of accessing both local and Scotland wide news.

Govanhill is the most diverse neighbourhood in Scotland and many of the communities here are marginalised by traditional, or legacy media. That marginalisation, and the feeling that news media isn’t relevant, means that many of the people that come to our events and workshops don’t read newspapers, even online, and don’t watch TV news.

That’s not just true here in Govanhill, but according to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University, four in ten people across the world say they sometimes or often avoid the news. And just over a third (36%) of people across the UK say they trust the media.

Our Open House editorial meetings were born a year later out of both The Ferret and Greater Govanhill’s desire to do our bit towards rebuilding that trust right here on our own doorstep.

Our two organisations are quite different. The Ferret is a Scotland-wide investigative media coop, reaching millions of readers through both our own website and co-publishing deals with everyone from Scottish titles including the Herald and the Daily Record to the BBC. Our journalists and members are our owners and can stand as either journalist or reader directors on our board. We’ve won multiple awards for big investigations into power and influence in Scotland today, including Scottish Press Awards team of the year for our Who Runs Scotland. 

Greater Govanhill meanwhile, is a local solutions-based media project which aims to challenge stereotypes, break down cultural barriers, and amplify unrepresented voices. It’s also award-winning and produces a free solutions-focused print magazine, delivered from our community newsroom to homes and businesses in the area, and runs regular events, workshops and training programmes equipping people with writing, filmmaking, storytelling skills and more.

But we’ve been working together to bring the media back on our local high street, aiming to more accessible to all. 

What is the Community Newsroom?

Our Community Newsroom is a place where people drop-by to tell us what they think, pick up a copy of the Govanhill Magazine, or book time to speak to one of our journalists about a story they think we should be working on. It’s a venue for our community training sessions, discussions and social events, a place to make real world connections not possible online. Our shop window features headlines from recent stories helping our journalism be visible in our community.

It also gives our teams of journalists a sustainable co-working environment, for freelancers as well as our journalists and local groups can hire out our meeting space or a pay-what-you-can basis too, creating a work environment that’s ripe for collaboration and for finding new ways of doing things.

Open editorial meetings

The idea for our Open House editorial meetings was to provide an opportunity for journalists from Greater Govanhill and The Ferret to collaborate with people with lived experience of different issues, as well as professionals and campaigners working on a range of topics. Everyone was invited into our public space on an equal footing to share their expertise.

As well as talking about the chosen topic, we also asked participants ‘what could the media cover better?’ and ‘what stories need to be heard?’.

People told us they wanted us to keep following stories, to talk about the reality that people live with, even when it’s not ‘sexy’ or new. Solidarity, they told us, is about sticking with it.

They agreed we should not shy away from telling things as they were. But they wanted us to cover the positives too, as well as investigate whether suggested solutions ever came to pass, reporting on them if they worked, but also when they didn’t.  

And they wanted us to go deeper, side-step the stereotypes and help the public understand issues from a human perspective rather than serve up sharable sound bites.

Discussing the housing emergency 

In December 2023, Glasgow City Council declared a housing emergency, becoming the third council in Scotland to do so. It seemed imperative that in an area of spiralling rents and with high rates of child poverty, we chose this as the first topic of our community newsroom.

It proved to be the right call. Our little 22-seater newsroom was so packed that people were perched on stools and crowded into our reception area. Those in the room included refugees and people with experience of homelessness, forced to wait for temporary accommodation in substandard hotels, young people made homeless on turning 18, campaigners of all sorts, housing association representatives and academics.

People shared their own experiences, and remarked on the similarity of challenges facing people in the room, despite their diverse backgrounds. They raised questions for our journalists to investigate and also asked us to look at what worked and could be replicated.

The idea of stopping evictions and preventing homelessness featured strongly. Yet we heard that was often far from the case, with some reporting stories of those facing evictions even from social housing. In that same meeting, we heard from one housing association representative about its attempt to take a different approach.

Instead of sending round the rent arrears officers, they instead employed community workers, who knew that dealing with the issues in people’s lives – from difficulties accessing benefits to dealing with grief, mental health and addiction problems – was the way to ensure people kept their homes. As Sanctuary Scotland’s community manager Anthony Morrow later told us: “It’s about recognising tenants that are struggling, helping them to be happy and healthy. Then the rent follows.”

The investigation that followed that meeting was two-fold. There was a hard hitting Scotland-wide news story exposing the level of eviction orders granted despite the supposed rent ban, an issue that had been raised at the meeting from a Glasgow perspective. 

But we didn’t stop there. We also reported on the approach of Sanctuary Housing, both the potential of the solution and the limitations in a feature style long read, giving people evidence that something different might be possible. Both pieces featured on The Ferret and the Sunday National… and on our shop front window, of course. 

Talking about food insecurity

We ended our housing meeting by asking people what we should focus on next, and food poverty and insecurity was a clear choice. Greater Govanhill had already worked alongside other members of the Scottish Beacon local news collaborative to report on the rising use of food banks across Scotland and based on what we heard from communities around the country, this felt like an urgent subject to discuss. 

From community kitchens to food pantries, a Muslim food parcel charity to the Sikh langar that provides hot meals, there are a number of organisations in Govanhill with knowledge of this area.

We invited them in, asking them to think about the history of food banks – which started as an emergency measure, not a solution in themselves and asking if the Scottish Government’s plans for “a cash first” plan to address this were moving fast and far enough.

Conversations highlighted the broader issues of poverty, seen through Scotland's growing food insecurity, focusing on the limitations of food aid models and their impact on vulnerable communities, such as asylum seekers. 

Discussions also centred on the challenges pantries face, such as funding and sourcing appropriate food. There was a call for a more dignified approach to food provision, with community meals proposed as a way to foster social inclusion and reduce stigma.

Public diners was one of the ideas that was raised in the discussion, both as a means of tackling social isolation and fostering community, as well as reducing stigma in accessing food support. Previously known as British Restaurants, these were publicly subsidised eating establishments that were common across the UK during the 1940s. 

So when Greater Govanhill was putting together an issue of the print magazine focused on heritage themes, we commissioned an article on this topic. The article explores the history of these establishments,  and the possibility of their return to Govanhill and Glasgow.

As Abigail McCall writes:

“British Restaurants were not perfect but they were public infrastructure. In theory, they extended people’s democratic control into their food environment. Public diners could do that again – and Govanhill would be the perfect place for them to start.”

Why this open approach matters to our journalism 

We believe everyone has a story worth hearing and that when we know and understand each other better, we support each other better. As much as surveys and digital engagement provide an opportunity to canvas views, nothing beats bringing together people for an in-person conversation. It helps them find solidarity and see the shared structural issues shaping their experience as well as individual circumstances.

The Open House creates connections, and leads to stories for our organisations to follow up on and develop. But they also stand as an ‘act of journalism’ in themselves – a direct means of sharing information, knowledge and lived expertise.

But there are challenges too. This work needs resources, both in organising and keeping in touch with our participants but in following up story leads and making sure we do what we say. It’s by doing so that we hope we will help, in our small way, build the trust that journalism so badly needs to rebuild. 

Karin Goodwin is an award-winning journalist who specialises in social affairs stories for online, audio, broadcast and print publications. She is the co-editor of The Ferret and co-founder of The Community Newsroom. Rhiannon J Davies is founder and editor of Greater Govanhill community magazine and The Scottish Beacon local news collaborative. She is interested in constructive, community-led journalism that creates positive social impact. 

This article is part of People-Powered Storytelling, a new collaborative series showcasing the transformative impact of community-centred media initiatives in the UK. Read more about the series, and the other contributions that are part of it, here.

‘Feral thugs,’ ‘street jackals’ and ‘thieving criminals’ were some of the headlines depicting working class youth following the 2011 riots across England. Media framed them as the enemy of the state; at odds with morality and civility. These violent outbursts were framed as acts of insanity, not sparked by the death of Mark Duggan in police custody or a reaction to years of systemic racism and economic decline. 

The newly formed youth team at Fully Focused, a youth-led media organisation, knew this image did not portray the complex reality at hand. So they got their cameras and decided to flip the script: making the award winning documentary Riot From Wrong (2012). 

They sensitively entered Mark Duggan’s community and became their own reporters, relatable peers to the young people they spoke to. They documented the structural reasons behind the riots: highlighting the disproportionate amount of deaths of black men in police custody, and the crippling impact of the recession on youth at the time, with youth centres being slashed across the nation.

The process became a blueprint for what was to come: empowering youth to be the narrators of their own story. 12 years on, Fully Focused is a multi-award winning independent youth-led production company and founders of Million Youth Media (MYM), offering free training and support to young people. Championing the next generation of filmmakers and underrepresented talent and co-creating content with others. Leading by example to create a more equitable media landscape that reflects the people it serves, Fully Focused is supported by a fast growing audience of over 750k subscribers across platforms.

How are young people feeling about the news?

In 2023, with the support of Lankelly Chase, we reflected on our relationship with the news and reimagined what it would look like if young people were at the helm. Working with a core group of young people aged 16-28, we held a series of conversations and focus groups.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that legacy media is dead to them. They are fully aware it is riddled with systematic inequalities – financially, operationally and culturally. Young people from underrepresented communities do not see themselves or their concerns accurately reflected in the press or any form of mainstream media. And if they are portrayed, it is either a narrative  of demonisation or of paternalistic pity. They feel strongly about this and they are angry. 

Traditional news feels overwhelming, vast and bleak. 96% of the young people in our focus group of 40 said they had entirely switched off from news channels, with one describing the news as “a pneumatic drill of negativity; relentless; never going away.” Consuming the news for them feels like an act of self-harm.

Reimagining the news

With limited resources, our starting point was to look at the existing priorities of our youth network. Each year we ask our substantial audience what topics they want us to explore and we ‘hard hustle’ to find the money to create content. Recent themes have included toxic masculinity, mental health, youth violence, the black experience of mental health provision* and gambling addiction. 

For this project the team settled on youth homelessness. Research showed at the time that no political party had a plan in their manifestos to respond to the current youth housing crisis. And strikingly, zero consideration and solutions were offered to address how extortionate rents and out-of-reach mortgages would impact the young generation. A shocking 136,000 young people went into a housing office to declare themselves homeless in 2023. But the real figure is likely far greater: with an invisible epidemic of homelessness in the form of overcrowding, couch surfing and unsafe living.

Our team was given a small budget and took the lead in the content creation process. The team quickly identified New Horizon, a youth centre supporting young Londoners experiencing homelessness, as collaborators, and rapidly formed a network of 140 youth charities to promote a UK wide petition to get the matter debated in parliament. 

In just three weeks, five films* were made spanning genres including: spoken word, talk show-style social content, traditional campaign films, comedy content and a drama that secured over 150k views in the first two days, which was core to securing enough signatures to get this important matter debated in parliament. 

The subject hit home and it was a cathartic journey for those involved. The project reinforced that involving young people in the production and distribution process of filmmaking can have huge benefits at an individual, organisational, and national scale. 

After much debate, we reassured ourselves that well researched content, underpinned by authentic experiences, accurate information and evidence can be classified as news. Young people want to experience their news through a range of formats and genres. They want creativity.

In our experience, nothing connects more than an immersive scripted film. It has the ability to engage audiences on a deep, human and emotional level – in a way that a wordy and alienating news report can not.

News in the hands of creators 

Content consumption has a deep impact on the way people feel about themselves, their perceptions of others and their understanding of the world. One could argue that the coverage of the recent UK terror attacks and unrest by mainstream news and social media did not simply document, but actively encouraged anxiety and fear for clicks and sales. 

Imagine the impact on the psyche, consuming – on repeat – hate-fueled videos, that expressed a disdain for you based on the colour of your skin or where you came from. A whipped up frenzy of unregulated, often inaccurate videos in our pockets, 24/7? Fuelling both fear and a responsibility to act. Perhaps you might not even have to imagine this depending on your background. These are just some of the conversations that have come up as part of our focus groups.

The media has a responsibility to interrogate how we cover such sensitive topics and the mental impact of consumption. And if youth communities are feeling scared, disillusioned, or feeling a sense of misjustice, what does this mean for our future? 

The future can be hopeful, if we dismantle what's broken and rebuild with compassion and responsibility.  We believe youthful optimism prevails against the odds. The creation and distribution of news can be repositioned as a tool for self-care, healing, reconnection and empowerment. 

There has never been a time where independent socially responsible media has been needed more. Young people would rather build a new, fresh and dynamic system of news than waste time trying to change an old one. This is what excites them. While news stories will not always be positive, they believe the creation process can be. It starts with bringing people together in safe spaces and re-installing the belief that they are heard and change is possible. Generating ideas that can lift and unify communities locally, nationally, on and offline. Where difference of opinion is encouraged and accepted and not used as a weapon for division, but as a starting point for connection.

Our future vision is bright, textured and playful; much like the young people who form our production company. Words and literature are powerful, but they’re certainly not the only way to convey a message or tell a story. Similarly, there are so many other means beyond conventional news formats. We are inspired by the world's many cultures where oral storytelling, song, dance and poetry live and breathe through generations, expressing complex histories, guides and politics. Our news will empower people to share in ways that suit them.

Recently our alumni, Isaac Bokoko and Martina Amoretti, curated an artistic multidisciplinary exhibition named Shades of Resistance featuring a variety of visual works alongside live performances. Through photography, art, film and dance the exhibition showcased how young people were processing and reacting to modern history. The exhibition examined how resistance has been at the core of many young people’s lives over the last two decades – taking inspiration from Pride, Notting Hill Carnival and Black Lives Matter. Themes of heritage, youth, queerness and womanhood were poignantly addressed in the displayed works. It brought people together, fostering a sense of community and empowerment. 

There’s also the question of how we are sharing our stories, given the rise of various social media spaces and the lack of regulation around them. As communicators, adapting to so many social spaces is a heavy and psychologically taxing weight to carry. We must protect ourselves and remember to use them and not be used by them. 

There is an urgent need for an independent, not for profit online platform to share locally sourced content, quickly and at scale; or at the very least a coordinated means of distributing across existing independent networks. It is our very own elephant in the room: we are sharing through platforms that we have no real control over, that prioritise profit over people. Independence and collaboration cost and united efforts won't gain strength or momentum with project funding alone. 

Connection, collaboration and co production are key

We have reignited our belief in the power of community and intentional spaces for dialogue, healing and connection. We would love to work with young people and grassroot organisations across the UK curating safe spaces to hold important conversations: co-creating, sharing and learning. Our vision would be to accumulate independent co-produced content for online distribution and broader sharing through community gatherings, events, Q&As. 

Whilst high views and engagement online are important, powerful interactions far outweigh the numbers. Our film Do it for her (2021) is a great example of the power of intentional space and conversation. The film dug deep into the destructive nature of gambling addiction, following a young Muslim male lead played by Fady Elsayd (Gangs of London). It was a scripted feature, but was commissioned  by YGAM, TalkGEN and Red Card; organisations aimed at combating gambling addiction amongst diverse communities. 

The London Islamic Cultural Society & Mosque also worked closely with us as gambling disproportionately impacts the Muslim community. They allowed us to premiere the film in the Mosque, followed by a powerful discussion after. 

Gambling is forbidden in Islam and is a deeply taboo topic in the community, so it was incredibly refreshing to create space for the community to generate intergenerational dialogue, to discuss, heal and connect. The film is still touring Mosques and schools throughout the country. 

We realised, it is not just about having millions of views online, but discovered the power of these intimate grassroots interactions, which can have such a profound impact and sow the seeds to change.

Ultimately, whether that be a Mosque where you hold an intimate intergenerational dialogue, a festival that focuses on different issues through art and workshops or an multi-platform campaign for change, the news needs to hinge on bringing communities together; creating, sharing, healing and connecting. 

We have the passion, energy and skills of a fantastic young team, we just need the longer term investment to get out there and do it.

Layla Mahmood is a journalist and project facilitator. Rosa Powloski is an executive producer and leads strategy and programmes at Fully Focused | MYM. We welcome you to get in touch with any questions, collaboration ideas, commissions and youth research requests: rosa.p@fullyfocusedproductions.com

*Links available on request

 www.fullyfocusedproductions.com | @UKFullyfocused
Million Youth Media (MYM) YouTube

This article is part of People-Powered Storytelling, a collaborative series showcasing the transformative impact of community-centred media initiatives in the UK. Read more about the series, and the other contributions that are part of it, here. 

How would you describe and define co-production? 

I like the word co-production because it hints at a genuine and equal collaboration between two parties, a pairing of skills. 

We work on participatory storytelling projects with traditionally marginalised communities and the way co-production takes shape in our work is a bit different every time. People want to be involved in different ways and to different extents, but there are certain commonalities that run through all of our projects. 

The way I see the partnership is that the individual or community that we're working with brings access, deep trust with their community, authenticity, or lived experience of a certain subject area. They also bring legitimacy and new ways of looking at a specific topic.

From our side, we bring technical skills, legal and editorial skills, camera or editing skills and the knowledge of how to tell a story and make it work for a certain audience and for maximum impact.

The best co-production projects bring these skills together to create something raw, authentic, surprising and new. I see co-production (or community-led journalism) as a set of tools and approaches that could be in any journalist or producer's locker.

What tools do you think are essential in a co-production approach to journalism and storytelling? 

There are a set of methodologies that we use in most of our projects, at different stages of the production process. Stage one starts before we even start production, when we run story dive sessions with communities to surface ideas, themes and angles. 

The next part of the process is around setting guiding principles for a project. As part of this, we brainstorm what we think the project should aim to achieve, which myths we might want to debunk, and which stereotypes we might want to try to avoid. 

This is really about making sure that everyone's on board with the tone of the project – this can be really important as it can give you a lot more creative licence further down the line to make decisions editorially and creatively, knowing that you’re doing so within a certain framework. It’s a great accountability tool that everyone can refer back to as the project develops. 

Some of these steps really help to set the tone for an equal collaboration. 

You can read more about our tools and methodologies by downloading our toolkits here.

How has this shown up in On Our Radar’s work? What has the impact been? 

We don't just want to do ‘fair trade journalism’ – nice, fluffy stories that feel inclusive but don't quite have that cut through. 

We want to work on stories that can compete with the best, can win awards and have a tangible impact – stories that are marked by being somehow different, unique and raw. 

For example, we worked on the award-winning documentary My Stolen Childhood, which explored ritual slavery in West Africa. That’s someone's life story, it's going to be the number one result when they search their name on Google for the rest of their life, and the one time they tell that story so publicly.

Working on a story like that in a collaborative way, using co-production methodologies, helps to ensure that the trust is fully there, that they feel completely comfortable to share their story in an open and honest way. 

One very ‘pure’ example of co-production was the Manchester Maze, a recent project we worked on with a group of people with direct lived experience of homelessness. 

I say pure in that it started off with a completely blank slate. We kicked off with a reporting sprint where we trained people with that lived experience to go away and capture stories and to report on what was happening to them and their community.

Through that reporting sprint, we dug up lots of interesting and surprising topics that we hadn't really maybe thought of before. We then ran a series of creative co-design workshops with the group to generate ideas, and that's where the idea of the Maze came from. 

It ended up being an interactive, choose-your-own-experience style web-doc, where the viewer was invited to make decisions about what they would do if they were in the shoes of a homeless person. All these decisions were choices that the reporting network had faced themselves. 

The group wanted to expose the web of bureaucratic traps that people fall into when they have nowhere else to turn.

At the outset, we really didn't have any sense of what we were going to make – and so I think it was really testament to the creativity of the group and the importance of staying open to all ideas that are put onto the table.  

We ended up coming up with something that we would have never imagined at the beginning and won the Orwell Prize for reporting homelessness. The judges valued the level of authenticity that shone through the storytelling, and the uniqueness of the approach.

What do you think some of the misperceptions or knowledge gaps around co-production are? 

I think that some people slightly misunderstand collaborating and sharing power with somehow giving away editorial control. We often have to say to communities working with us that, if the BBC is ultimately going to put this piece out, they do retain final editorial control, they have the final say, and there's not much we can do about that.

But there's a huge amount of collaboration, compromise and negotiation to be had before we get to the point of ceding editorial control. I think production is already a very collaborative game, whether it's between a reporter and a director, or between the producer and camera operator. There are always decisions that are being made, with different skill sets being brought in at different points.

For certain stories, it's a case of extending that collaborative spirit to the contributors that we're working with, and as seen with some of our work, it can make for richer, more authentic storytelling.

The other main misconception is the idea that we're advocating to do participatory, community-led storytelling for every piece. 

I think for certain pieces, it's absolutely not appropriate. If you're investigating a corrupt cop or a dodgy politician, or you have access to a powerful institution – essentially, when you’re punching up – editorial independence is totally vital.

But, on the other hand, when you're working with communities that have been traditionally misrepresented, or historically marginalised, working in a more collaborative way can help to build trust that can give that community a chance to address some of the misconceptions and stereotypes that may have historically been associated with them. It’s an opportunity to think collaboratively about how a story can be told through a different lens.

So I think that's a key takeaway - that co-production is not something that a journalist or a producer has to do all the time. And it can be done to different degrees, in different parts of a project. For example, you might one day use participatory techniques with a group of women who are survivors of domestic abuse, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to use the same techniques the next day if you’re trying to hold the police unit who have been handling domestic abuse cases to account.

Solutions journalism as a way of approaching stories has become much more embedded within the industry in recent years. Do you see similarities with co-production, and the potential for this approach to also be used more widely?  

I'd love for community-led storytelling, as a movement, to learn from the way solutions journalism has grown in recent years. I think what solutions journalism has done really well is to create an ethos, a strong mission and vision, and a clear set of tools that can be used to bring solutions journalism into people’s work.

On top of that, it's created a network of ambassadors and of trainers who can help to spread that methodology. And it doesn't mean that people doing it are ‘solutions journalists’ one hundred percent of the time, just as with co-production in our work as I’ve outlined. While some might use solutions journalism techniques all of the time, many others just bring elements of solutions journalism into their pieces every now and then when they feel like the topic is relevant.

And how do funders fit into the picture here? What resourcing is needed to make co-production as a widespread method a reality? 

We need funding to be able to create a similar movement, growing out all of the amazing work that’s happening in the UK around co-production and community-led storytelling. As with the Solutions Journalism Network, we also need ambassadors, trainers, and a clear and unified set of guidelines that would allow journalists to learn to work in a more participatory way, in deeper collaboration with the communities that they are reporting on. 

There is already a network of organisations doing great work within this space - but to scale the impact of these methodologies, more funding is desperately needed so that we can provide training, tools and support to journalists who want to be more community-led in their approach. 

If outlets and institutions could build a more community-led approach into their work, we'd not only see more diverse voices in the mainstream, but we’d also see these organisations build deeper trust within communities that have been historically marginalised. And I believe that it would help to surface a different set of perspectives and more unique stories.

Paul Myles is a documentary filmmaker and Director at On Our Radar. Having previously worked as an investigative reporter for Channel 4 Dispatches, he joined On Our Radar to lead on their journalism projects, working with historically marginalised groups to find ways of amplifying their stories.

This article is part of People-Powered Storytelling, a new collaborative series showcasing the transformative impact of community-centred media initiatives in the UK. Read more about the series, and the other contributions that are part of it, here.