The latest episode of the Decentered Media Podcast brings together Rob Watson and Sameer Padania for a detailed discussion about the future of the BBC and the wider conditions that shape public service media in the United Kingdom. The conversation is framed around Charter renewal, but it moves well beyond the mechanics of governance to ask a deeper question: what kind of information environment do we want to sustain, and who is responsible for protecting it?

Download the DEMOS Report: Our BBC: A blueprint for a more independent and future-proofed BBC

At the centre of the discussion is the concept of “epistemic security”. While the term may sound technical, the underlying concern is straightforward. Just as societies think in terms of food security or national security, epistemic security refers to the systems that ensure reliable knowledge can be produced, shared and trusted. Journalism, libraries, broadband infrastructure, civic institutions and regulatory frameworks are not isolated policy domains. They form a single, interdependent ecosystem that shapes how citizens understand the world around them.

The episode situates the BBC within this broader frame. The question is not simply whether the BBC should be defended as an institution, but whether it functions as part of the democratic infrastructure that protects citizens from information risk. In a media environment increasingly influenced by global technology platforms, financialised ownership structures and opaque algorithmic systems, the BBC represents one of the few institutions that remains subject to public accountability and democratic oversight.

Charter renewal, therefore, becomes more than a periodic administrative exercise. It is a constitutional moment in which the UK must decide how independence, accountability and funding are balanced. The discussion explores proposals to strengthen governance, reduce political interference in appointments, and secure adequate long-term funding so that public service obligations are not undermined by short-term fiscal pressures. Without structural stability, public service media risks being drawn into reactive cycles that weaken both confidence and capacity.

A significant theme in the conversation is the rejection of zero-sum thinking. Reform of the BBC should not be framed as a battle between sectors or as a choice between public and independent provision. Instead, the argument advanced is that constitutional clarity and institutional stability at the centre can create the conditions for confidence and opportunity at local and community levels. If epistemic security is treated as a shared public interest rather than a partisan instrument, then dialogue becomes possible across different parts of the media landscape.

The episode also reflects on the fragmentation of previous policy debates. Discussions about journalism, local media sustainability, digital infrastructure or civic participation have often been treated as separate issues. The epistemic security framework seeks to reconnect these strands and to articulate a more coherent account of how democratic societies maintain informational resilience. In doing so, it invites policymakers, practitioners and citizens alike to consider whether existing arrangements are sufficient for the pressures of a globalised and technologically concentrated media system.

This conversation does not claim to provide final answers. It offers, instead, a pragmatic and open-ended exploration of the choices facing the UK at a critical moment. If the BBC is to remain part of the democratic architecture, its future must be debated in terms that recognise both its institutional responsibilities and its role within a wider ecology of knowledge, trust and civic life.

You can listen to the full discussion in the accompanying podcast episode. As always, Decentered Media welcomes thoughtful engagement and sustained dialogue about how media systems can serve the public interest in an era of rapid change.

Source

This episode of Decentered Media Podcast features Matthew Colthup discussing concerns about selective reporting in UK climate coverage. He questions how Ofcom, the BBC, and mainstream outlets frame the “climate emergency,” arguing that media bias limits open debate on energy policy, science, and democratic accountability.

In this conversation, Matthew Colthup raises serious questions about how environmental issues are framed and reported across the UK’s media landscape. His concern is not with the principle of environmental protection itself, but with what he describes as a narrowing of the public conversation about climate and energy policy.

According to Matthew, a form of narrative control has emerged around the idea of a “climate emergency,” driven by regulators such as Ofcom and reinforced by major outlets including the BBC and The Guardian. He argues that this alignment has created a media environment in which dissenting, or alternative scientific perspectives are frequently dismissed, marginalised, or omitted altogether.

Matthew points to a pattern in which credentialled scientists, engineers, and energy consultants who question aspects of mainstream climate modelling or net zero policy are portrayed as fringe figures rather than legitimate contributors to public understanding. He believes this lack of balance undermines trust in both journalism and public institutions, leaving audiences without access to a full range of evidence and interpretations.

One of his key examples concerns reporting on renewable energy and grid reliability. He suggests that important technical debates about intermittency, frequency stability, and system resilience are underrepresented in mainstream coverage, despite their significance for public policy and energy security. By contrast, these issues are discussed more openly on digital platforms and independent media channels, where long-form interviews and detailed analysis are possible.

Matthew’s broader concern is about the health of open dialogue in democratic society. He argues that when scientific discussion is reduced to consensus-based soundbites, citizens lose the opportunity to weigh evidence for themselves. The result, he says, is not clarity but conformity — a tendency to frame all disagreement as denial or bad faith.

The conversation invites listeners to reflect on the role of editorial gatekeeping and algorithmic amplification in shaping public awareness of environmental policy. Matthew calls for a renewed commitment to balance and transparency, urging media regulators and public broadcasters to restore confidence by facilitating debate rather than closing it down.

As with many discussions hosted by Decentered Media, this episode does not seek to settle scientific questions, but to highlight how communication practices themselves influence civic understanding. The underlying question remains: how can we sustain an open, informed conversation about the planet’s future when some voices feel unheard?

Source

Source

In this episode of the Decentered Media podcast, I sit down with Kajal Nisha Patel to explore how creativity, care, and communication intersect in meaningful and unexpected ways. We talk not only about Kajal’s long-standing work as a visual artist and community practitioner but also about what it means to resist the pressures of productivity in favour of something slower, more embodied, and socially rooted.

Kajal reflects on her journey from street photography to socially engaged art, describing how her work with Leicester’s Indian communities led her to think differently about wellbeing, belonging, and the stories that shape our understanding of place and identity. We discuss her project Ways to Wellbeing, which challenges both the individualism of mainstream self-care culture and the tokenistic use of co-creation in funded arts contexts. Instead, Kajal foregrounds a model of practice grounded in empathy, deep listening, and shared agency—especially when working with elders and navigating complex issues like neurodiversity and intergenerational trauma.

Our conversation takes a wide path, from the crumbling textile factories of Leicester’s industrial past to the curated perfection of family life on social media. We consider how media, at its best, should help us be more present—not more distracted—and ask what forms of creative expression can support a more grounded, care-centred approach to life. Kajal’s account of how photography helped her find stillness and connection offers a powerful reminder of how artistic tools can help us reclaim agency and make sense of our environments, particularly in the face of capitalist systems that prioritise performance over meaning.

At the heart of this episode is a call to re-centre communication as a process of mutual recognition, not as a means of extraction or branding. Kajal’s experiences—as an artist, a yoga teacher, and a former communications officer—bring insight into how media can either deepen disconnection or become a tool for healing and solidarity.

If you’re interested in the ethics of care, the politics of representation, and the everyday acts of cultural stewardship that help build resilient communities, this conversation offers a thoughtful and nourishing space to reflect.

You can find out more about Kajal’s work at kajalpatel.com. To support Decentered Media, visit decentered.co.uk.

Source

In this episode of the Decentered Media Podcast, Rob speaks with Evan Henshaw-Plath, widely known as Rabble, a technologist, activist, and early contributor to what would become Twitter. Their conversation offers a deep and reflective exploration of how digital communication platforms have evolved, and what can be done to reclaim them for civic participation and community empowerment.

Drawing on his early experiences with Indymedia, Rabble recounts how technology was once used to support activist-led media during pivotal global protests, most notably the 1999 WTO demonstrations in Seattle. He describes how these early experiments in collaborative, decentralised media laid the groundwork for new forms of participatory journalism, long before the rise of social media giants. This backdrop serves as a foundation for examining how grassroots tools like TXTmob enabled real-time coordination among activists and helped shape what would eventually become known as microblogging.

As the conversation develops, Rabble provides a first-hand account of the creative process behind Twitter’s initial development, offering insights into the cultural and ideological tensions that surfaced as the platform grew. He reflects on the moment when platforms shifted from tools of participation to vehicles for commercial surveillance and centralised control, particularly as venture capital interests began to dominate design decisions.

The discussion also turns to Rabble’s current work on nos.social, a decentralised social media platform built on the Nostr protocol. Here, he outlines an alternative vision of digital communication—one that enables people to own their identities, govern their communities, and exit platforms without losing their social connections. He explains how this approach draws inspiration from the open architecture of podcasting and email, and why protocols, rather than proprietary platforms, are essential for sustaining democratic dialogue online.

Throughout the episode, Rob and Rabble examine the deeper ethical and philosophical questions that underpin digital media development. They consider the challenges of fostering freedom of speech in a context shaped by moderation dilemmas, identity conflicts, and the psychological dynamics of social media use. Rabble discusses how the economic incentives behind advertising-based platforms have shaped user behaviour, and why rethinking the funding and governance structures of online systems is central to creating more just and inclusive digital environments.

Closing with a call for a new social contract for the internet, Rabble outlines the core principles of a proposed Social Media Bill of Rights. These include the right to privacy, the right to control one’s data and identity, the right to choose or exit platforms freely, and the right to participate in shaping moderation and algorithmic choices. For Rabble, these are not abstract ideals—they are practical necessities for building a media landscape that truly supports human dignity and democratic engagement.

This episode is an invitation to reflect on the structures that shape our online lives and to imagine new forms of media that are cooperative, decentralised, and grounded in civic responsibility. It’s a conversation that moves between personal insight, technical knowledge, and political critique, and it offers listeners a valuable perspective on how we might reclaim the digital commons for the public good.

Source

In this episode of the Decentered Media Podcast, Rob Watson is joined by Ciarán Murray, CEO and founder of the Olas Foundation, to explore how decentralised technologies are being used to challenge the structural weaknesses of traditional journalism. It’s a wide-ranging and thought-provoking discussion that asks what happens when we reframe journalism not as a commodity shaped by advertising and algorithmic logic, but as a public good rooted in transparency, trust, and shared ownership.

Ciarán brings to the conversation a deep understanding of both blockchain systems and media economics, drawing on his background in political science and his experience in the Web3 ecosystem. Olas, the project he leads, is not just another platform. It’s an attempt to build a foundational infrastructure that enables journalism to operate without the distortions of centralised control. But how feasible is it to replace editorial gatekeeping with decentralised protocols? Can token-based systems generate the kind of accountability that traditional institutions claim to offer? And perhaps more crucially, what does this mean for community media, citizen journalism, and local storytelling?

The conversation examines the motivations behind Olas, especially the crisis of trust facing media institutions today. It explores the idea that ownership and influence in media must be radically rethought—less about the interests of corporations and more about mechanisms that empower both contributors and communities. The discussion touches on the design of quality-control processes, the dynamics of crowdsourced funding, and the potential for smart contracts to support transparent, equitable participation. Rob asks how these technologies might support journalists working at a neighbourhood level, or how they might adapt to the needs of emerging media producers who are often excluded from institutional settings.

But this isn’t just a technical conversation. It’s a reflection on values—on what kind of media future we want to build, and who gets to shape it. How do we balance the freedom of expression with the need to resist misinformation and manipulation? What responsibilities do innovators like Olas have in ensuring inclusivity and resilience? And how do we ensure that decentralisation does not become another form of hierarchy by stealth?

In speaking with Ciarán, what emerges is not a utopian vision, but a clear commitment to designing systems that make better outcomes possible. Olas represents a compelling experiment in restructuring the relationship between media makers, audiences, and the infrastructures that connect them. Whether this model becomes a supplement or an alternative to legacy institutions remains to be seen. But what’s clear is that it opens the door to a much-needed conversation about where journalism is going—and who it should be for.

You can find out more about Olas at olas.info, and listen to the full podcast episode on the Decentered Media website or wherever you get your podcasts.

Source