Podcast
Decentered Media Podcast
Hosted by Rob Watson · EN
Decentered Podcast – An off-centre look at community, social and sustainable media.. With discussions about the role of media in sustainable and participative communities, providing an alternative to mass media. We look at how we build our capabilities to tell our own stories and think about the importance of what we become in producing and sharing our own media content.
22episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Rebuilding Trust in Media Through a Story Commons
Apr 1301:18:56Tap to summarizeThis episode of Decentered Media brings together Megan Lucero and Debs Grayson from the People’s Newsroom for a discussion about what journalism might look like if it were organised less around extraction and more around relationships, care and shared civic purpose. The conversation begins with the People’s Newsroom’s aim of building a storytelling collective and a story commons that supports a more regenerative future. Rather than treating journalism as a closed profession or a purely commercial service, the discussion asks what becomes possible when storytelling is rooted in participation, local knowledge and collective sense-making. A central theme in the episode is dissatisfaction with the dominant media model. Megan and Debs suggest that much conventional journalism still operates through extraction. Stories are taken, packaged and sold back to the public, often without acknowledging the social relationships and lived knowledge from which those stories emerge. In contrast, the idea of a story commons begins from the recognition that storytelling is already a shared social practice. Journalism, in this view, should not simply harvest information. It should help people make sense of their lives together. This becomes especially relevant when the discussion turns to the growing tendency of institutions to communicate through social video, influencers and platform-led messaging. The issue, however, is not simply whether government or public bodies are using the right channels. The deeper question is why trust has eroded in the first place. If institutions are struggling to reach people, the answer may not be to imitate the style of social media more efficiently. It may be to ask whether they have stopped listening well, and whether communication has become too managerial, too centralised and too detached from everyday experience. What audiences often value is not polish alone, but authenticity, accountability and a sense that communication is grounded in actual human experience. That is where the People’s Newsroom offers a useful challenge. Rather than presenting a fixed newsroom template, it points towards a process of finding people and organisations who are already doing meaningful work in their communities, and learning from them collectively. Some of these groups would not define themselves as newsrooms at all. They may be arts organisations, neighbourhood initiatives or local civic groups. What matters is that they are already building trust, sharing stories and helping people stay informed and connected. One of the most important ideas in the episode is that the process is itself part of the outcome. That shifts attention away from the finished article, report or video as the only measure of value. Instead, the way people gather, listen, contribute and negotiate meaning becomes part of the journalistic act. This is a significant challenge to media systems that reward speed, scale and emotional reaction. It suggests that trustworthy media may depend less on industrial efficiency and more on social depth. Debs extends this argument through the language of the commons. A commons is not simply a shared asset. It is a set of practices through which people steward something together. The comparison with language is useful. Nobody owns language, yet people learn to use it through participation, repetition, experimentation and shared norms. In the same way, a media commons would rely on lived practice, not just formal rules. It would depend on habits of care, mutual responsibility and collective accountability. This also raises practical questions about standards, ethics and regulation. The episode does not suggest that all storytelling should be informal or unstructured. Rather, it points towards the need for layered accountability, where local autonomy is supported by shared codes and backstop mechanisms. That matters at a time when many creators and communicators are working independently, often with limited institutional backing but significant public responsibility. Another strong thread in the conversation is the role of place. The discussion argues that too much contemporary media either leaves people stranded in the noise of platform culture or pulls attention upwards towards large, centralised institutions, while neglecting the middle ground of trusted, local, independent media. Place matters because it is where relationships are built and w...
Transcribe →Why Local Media Still Matters – Lessons from Academic Research
Apr 1000:55:04Tap to summarizeIn this episode of the Decentered Media podcast, I speak with Professor Agnes Gulyas and Simona Bisiani about their report, Challenges and Opportunities for UK Local Media: Insights from Academic Research. Our discussion starts from a simple but important question: what do we now mean by “local media” in a digital environment where the old boundaries of place, reach and audience are no longer clear? The report was written to help bridge the gap between academic research and professional practice, drawing together evidence about the pressures facing local media and the public value it still holds. One of the most useful contributions of the report is its insistence that local media should not be understood only as a commercial product. The discussion points to several important roles for local media: providing information about a locality, supporting democratic participation, holding power to account, strengthening community cohesion, and preserving community identity and memory. That is a helpful reminder that local media is not simply a content stream. It is part of the civic infrastructure of everyday life. When these functions are weakened, something more than a business model is lost. The conversation also highlights how difficult it has become to define what “local” means. In the analogue era, local newspapers and local radio had clearer territorial boundaries. In the digital era, those boundaries have become unstable. A story can be written for one town, repackaged for a region, and read anywhere. That might look efficient from a managerial perspective, but it also raises harder questions about representation, relevance and belonging. If regionalisation becomes the default response to economic pressure, whose voices are amplified and whose are flattened out or ignored? An important theme running through the discussion is that people do not only want information. They want to feel represented. They want stories that reflect their own place and experience, and they often value journalism more when it is produced by people who are recognisably part of that community. This is where localness matters in ways that cannot be reduced to efficiency measures. A service may still deliver information, but if it no longer carries local texture, trust and recognition, it may cease to feel local in any meaningful sense. Another issue raised in the discussion is that community media is too often left out of policy thinking. Regulation and support mechanisms tend to focus on local journalism in narrow institutional terms, while the wider ecology of local and community media is frequently excluded or treated as marginal. That is a serious problem, because it narrows the range of solutions available. If policy only imagines rescue packages for legacy publishers, it may miss more plural, place-based and participatory forms of media that already exist or could be developed. The question of sustainability remains unresolved, but the discussion offers some clear lines of thought. The UK has historically shown less willingness than some other countries to intervene institutionally in support of a distressed local media sector. At the same time, there are different possible models of support, including needs-based approaches, publisher support, philanthropic funding and reader revenue. Yet sustainability is not only about finance. It is also about whether there are enough people willing and able to produce local journalism, and whether audiences are prepared to recognise its value and support it over time. That leads to one of the most important closing points in the conversation: media literacy and discoverability. Too many people now confuse getting information from social platforms with having access to local journalism or community media. They are not the same thing. If local media is to remain viable, people need better ways of understanding why it matters, how it differs from platform chatter, and how to find it easily in a crowded digital environment. Discoverability is not a minor technical issue. It is now central to whether local media can function at all. What emerges overall is not a nostalgic defence of older media forms, but a call to think more clearly about what local media is for. The discussion suggests that the future will not be secured by clinging to inherited institutional models alone, nor by assuming that platforms and scale will solve everything. The stronger argument is that local media needs to be understood as a public and civic good, shaped by place, participation, trust and relevance. If that is right, then the challenge is not only how to save legacy institutions, but how to create a more plural and resilient local media ecology for the future. Source
Transcribe →Learning in Practice – Shumaila Jaffery’s Reflections from the Field
Mar 2800:59:05Tap to summarizeWhat does it mean to step into a community media environment not as an observer at a distance, but as a participant embedded in its everyday routines? This discussion between Rob Watson and Shumaila Jaffrey reflects on that question through the lens of lived experience, research practice, and civic engagement. Over the course of her placement, Shumaila encountered community media not as an abstract concept, but as a working ecology of relationships, conversations, and shared activity. The discussion explores how this form of engagement offers a different vantage point for understanding social issues. Rather than relying solely on predefined frameworks, it becomes possible to observe how meaning is negotiated in practice, how people relate to one another, and how communication is shaped by context. A central theme in the conversation is the value of being “in the field.” This is not simply about proximity, but about participation. It involves listening, contributing, and recognising how knowledge is produced through interaction. Community media, in this sense, operates as a space where research and practice intersect, allowing for a more grounded and reflexive form of inquiry. The discussion also considers the importance of neutrality, not as detachment, but as a disciplined openness to different perspectives. By working within a community media setting, researchers are able to encounter a range of voices and experiences that might otherwise remain peripheral. This creates opportunities to reassess assumptions, refine questions, and develop a more nuanced understanding of the issues being studied. At the same time, the conversation highlights the role of relationships. The sense of belonging that emerges from collaborative work, shared routines, and informal exchanges is not incidental. It is central to how community media functions. These relationships shape both the process of communication and the experience of learning, reinforcing the idea that knowledge is not simply acquired, but co-produced. There is also a recognition that community media offers something distinctive within the broader media landscape. It provides a platform where participation is not limited to consumption, but extends to creation, dialogue, and reflection. For researchers, this presents an opportunity to engage with media as a social practice, rather than as a set of outputs or metrics. This podcast discussion therefore serves as both a reflection and an invitation. It reflects on the value of experiential learning within community media, and it invites others to consider how similar approaches might inform their own work. What changes when research is grounded in participation? How does understanding shift when it is shaped by interaction rather than abstraction? These are questions that do not yield simple answers, but they point towards a way of working that is attentive, responsive, and rooted in the realities of everyday communication. In that respect, the discussion offers a useful starting point for thinking about how community media can support both research and practice in a changing social and media environment. Source
Transcribe →Epistemic Security and the Future of the BBC: Rethinking Public Service Media at Charter Renewal
Feb 2001:30:03Tap to summarizeThe 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
Transcribe →Decentered Media Podcast – Foundational Media and the Problem of Polarisation
Dec 2901:05:51Tap to summarizeIn this episode of the Decentered Media Podcast, I am joined by Shumaila Jaffery, a journalist and doctoral researcher whose work spans reporting in Pakistan and the UK. We use that lived, professional experience to explore a simple but difficult question. If media is part of the social infrastructure that holds everyday life together, what has to change for it to support social cohesion rather than fragmentation? We begin with the distinction between media as an arm of the state, media as a commercial instrument, and media as a civic resource. Shumaila reflects on the practical realities of working within systems where editorial independence is constrained, where commercial ownership brings its own pressures, and where public-facing legitimacy can be undermined by political capture. That comparison helps clarify why “public service” cannot be reduced to a funding mechanism or a brand identity. It is a continuous governance problem, shaped by power, incentives, and accountability. From there, the conversation turns to what both of us see as a defining risk of the present moment. Polarisation is not only an online phenomenon. It is experienced in workplaces, neighbourhoods, and family life. It is reinforced by media environments that reward outrage, simplify complex issues into identity conflict, and create feedback loops in which people rarely encounter credible accounts of each other’s everyday realities. We discuss misinformation in this context, not as a side issue, but as a structural vulnerability that hostile actors, irresponsible influencers, and opportunistic organisations can exploit at scale. We also examine diaspora and community-specific media. Shumaila’s research interest highlights an important tension. Community-facing media can give people voice, recognition, and a sense of belonging. At the same time, it can intensify separations from wider civic life, especially when it becomes a closed circuit of grievance, status competition, or political mobilisation. The question is not whether diaspora media is “good” or “bad”. The question is what design principles, ethical norms, and governance models help it act as a bridge rather than a wall. Another thread running through the episode is professional authority. The historic idea that media requires special institutions and gatekeepers is weakening. Ordinary people now have the tools to document, publish, and coordinate. That shift is full of possibility, but it also raises the stakes for media literacy, verification norms, and public standards. If the means of production are widely distributed, then responsibility has to be widely distributed too. Otherwise, the void is filled by monetised sensationalism and low-trust narratives that travel faster than careful reporting. Across these themes, we return repeatedly to a practical framing. Foundational media is not a single organisation, nor a single policy lever. It is an orientation. It treats communication as part of the everyday conditions for a decent society. It asks what kinds of local, place-based and interest-based media practices can support deliberation, participation, and shared understanding, without being reduced to state messaging or market competition. It also asks what forms of support are required, including resources, governance, and public legitimacy. How to get involved in the ongoing dialogue This podcast is part of a wider effort to build a clearer, grounded sense of what Foundational Media could mean in practice, across different sectors and contexts. If you would like to participate, there are three straightforward routes. 1. Book a recorded conversation slot for the Decentered Media Podcast. These sessions are structured conversations rather than debates, and are designed to surface practical insight from experience. 2. Send a short note explaining what you do and what you think the Foundational Media question looks like from where you stand. If a recorded session is not right for you, a written contribution can still help shape the agenda for future discussions. 3. Propose a case study. This could be a local media practice, a civic information problem, a governance model that has worked, or a failure that taught useful lessons. The aim is to build a shared evidence base, not a set of slogans. You can contact me via the Decentered Media contact page or by email. You can also use the Foundational Media page as a starting point for the wider framing and the invitation to participate. Source
Transcribe →Questioning the Climate Narrative – Matthew Colthup on Media Selectivity and Environmental Debate
Oct 1501:11:13Tap to summarizeThis 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
Transcribe →Reimagining Care, Creativity, and Communication — A Conversation with Kajal Nisha Patel
Jul 1400:59:46Tap to summarizeIn 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
Transcribe →Building Participatory Media with Evan Henshaw-Plath (aka Rabble)
Jun 901:27:00Tap to summarizeIn 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
Transcribe →Decentered Media Podcast 007 – Reframing Reality: Journalism, Sex-Based Rights, and the Supreme Court Judgement
Apr 17, 202500:44:04Tap to summarizeFor this episode of the Decentered Media Podcast, I spoke with Cath Leng from Seen in Journalism about a legal decision with far-reaching implications for how we understand and report on identity in the UK. The Supreme Court’s ruling that the definition of “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex—not self-identified or certificated sex—has reset the terms of public and legal discourse. This judgement, Cath argues, brings clarity where ambiguity had been allowed to proliferate, particularly within the media. Cath has been at the heart of this issue for many years. A former BBC journalist, she faced internal resistance when raising concerns about the erasure of sex as a factual category in reporting. The challenge, as she sees it, has not just been one of legal misinterpretation but of cultural capture—where editorial norms have gradually shifted to affirm gender identity claims, often at the expense of accuracy and impartiality. The conversation with Cath highlights the complex role that media organisations have played in shaping this debate. From the adoption of self-identification language to the suppression of sex-based terminology, the press and broadcasters have contributed—intentionally or not—to a public understanding that has deviated from the legal framework. In doing so, they’ve also affected the ability of citizens to make informed decisions about issues ranging from women’s rights and safeguarding to healthcare and sport. Cath explains how Seen in Journalism, part of a wider network including civil service and healthcare professionals, works to restore factual accuracy and legal clarity to newsroom practices. Their approach isn’t about silencing debate—it’s about starting from verifiable facts. As Cath puts it, journalists need to “look out the window” and describe what they see, rather than reporting conflicting narratives as though both are equally valid when one contradicts biological reality and legal precedent. One key thread in our conversation was the importance of language. Terms like “gender identity” have been inconsistently applied in editorial contexts, often used interchangeably with “sex” despite their distinct meanings. This blurring has had real-world consequences, including the erosion of women’s single-sex spaces and confusion around safeguarding policies. The Supreme Court’s judgement brings an end to this ambiguity, at least in legal terms. But whether it will recalibrate journalistic practice remains to be seen. Cath is realistic about the road ahead. While some media outlets, such as Sky News, responded quickly and responsibly to the judgement, others—particularly those who have deeply embedded policies of affirmation—may be slow to adapt. Institutional inertia, leadership sensitivities, and the legacy of activist influence continue to shape editorial culture. But the legal clarity now available provides a strong foundation for change—and an opening for newsroom leaders to reassess their policies on impartiality and accuracy. From a community media perspective, this conversation is especially relevant. Public trust in media depends on clarity, transparency, and responsibility. Community-based outlets and citizen journalists have an opportunity—and perhaps a responsibility—to model reporting that acknowledges complexity without abandoning fact. As legacy media navigate this moment, the wider ecosystem of place-based and participatory media can help keep the lens in focus. What we need now, as Cath says, is willingness—willingness to acknowledge past missteps, to listen to underrepresented voices, and to re-anchor editorial decisions in shared, observable reality. The judgement doesn’t just offer legal clarification; it offers a cultural pause point, a moment to re-examine how journalism serves the public. Follow Seen in Journalism on X: @JournalismSeen Substack: Follow Cath @cathleng Support the Decentered Media Podcast on Patreon Source
Transcribe →Decentered Media Podcast – Ciarán Murray Reimagining Journalism Blockchain, Tokens, and the Future of Decentralised Media
Apr 8, 202501:12:33Tap to summarizeIn 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
Transcribe →