GRF · Information Integrity and Public Trust
Community information
Local news reports on councils, courts, schools and emergencies that national outlets ignore. Where local reporting has closed, fewer people vote in local elections, borrowing costs for municipalities can rise and rumours fill the gap. Community media and trusted local messengers carry information where commercial news does not reach. This page sets out how community information systems work and fail, the records that show it, and who decides.
Community information on the record.
Community information: how the risk develops.
Access and local language needs. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Local news closes
Loss of classified and display advertising made many local papers unviable. Closures leave places without regular reporting on local institutions.
Accountability weakens
Without reporters at council meetings and courts, misconduct is less likely to be found. Research links closures to changes in local government and civic behaviour.
Community media fill some gaps
Community radio, non-profit newsrooms and local social groups provide information, with varying resources, standards and reach.
Trusted messengers matter
Local leaders, health workers and faith groups carry information further than distant institutions. Their reach depends on being informed and involved.
What tips a population into acting.
How the share of early movers and the thresholds people hold decide whether a protective behaviour, or a false narrative, stays local or spreads to most people. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
Controls
- Mean threshold (share of neighbours)
- 18%
- Spread of thresholds
- 8 points
- Early movers
- 2.0% of people
- Contacts per person
- 8
Readouts
- Share who acted in the end
- 100%
- Global cascade
- Yes
- Steps to settle
- 10
Numbers, methods and sources
| Step | Share who have acted (%) |
|---|---|
| 0 | 2.0 |
| 1 | 6.8 |
| 2 | 18.5 |
| 3 | 35.8 |
| 4 | 58.0 |
| 5 | 78.0 |
| 6 | 91.0 |
| 7 | 96.5 |
| 8 | 99.5 |
| 9 | 100.0 |
| 10 | 100.0 |
Methods
- Threshold models of collective behaviour Granovetter (1978), American Journal of Sociology 83
- Global cascades on random networks Watts (2002), PNAS 99
- Complex contagions Centola and Macy (2007), American Journal of Sociology 113
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
No observed data enters this model: it runs on the teaching values set by the controls, to be replaced with a programme's own evidence.
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Foundry
- Tested at Information Integrity and Public Trust in Universe
- Codified in Governance, Security and Society in Standards
- Published in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Areas without a local news source | count of local areas | annual | News desert mapping | ESTIMATED |
| Local news outlets closed and opened | count | annual | Industry and academic tracking | REPORTED |
| Licensed community radio stations | count | annual | Broadcast regulator registers | Published statistics |
| Public funding for local journalism | currency per year | annual | Government budgets | Published statistics |
| Local election turnout | share of eligible voters | per election | Electoral records | Published statistics |
| Trust in local news | share of respondents | annual | Digital News Report | ESTIMATED |
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
- Mandate and problem framing Competent authority (outside the programme)
A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Evidence and system model Foundry
The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2 - Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983) - Exercise with stakeholders Universe
The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3 - Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process - Decision by the authority Competent authority (outside the programme)
The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Capacity and training Risk Academy
Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2 - Monitoring and public report Reports
Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5 - Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
- Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
- Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
- Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Foundry
- Tested at Information Integrity and Public Trust in Universe
- Codified in Governance, Security and Society in Standards
- Published in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Medill State of Local News report | Mapping of news deserts in the United States | Free to read, terms to check |
| Broadcast regulator registers | Licensed community stations | Public records, terms per regulator |
| UNESCO World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development | Global trends in media viability and freedom | Free, UNESCO terms |
| Reuters Institute Digital News Report | Local news use and trust | Free to read, terms to check |
| Electoral commission records | Local election turnout | Public records, terms per commission |
How community information is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Accountability cycle
How commitments on community information are held to account, from commitment to correction.
- CommitGovernmentA commitment with a mandate and a legal basis.
- PlanLead agencyA national plan with owners and milestones.
- ResourceMinistry of financeA budget line or financing on record.
- ImplementAgencies and local governmentDelivery against the plan.
- ReportStatistics officeIndicators reported in agreed definitions.
- ReviewLegislature, audit, civil societyIndependent review of results and gaps.
- CorrectGovernmentChanges to the plan, published with reasons.
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Information Integrity and Public Trust prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Legislatures and culture ministries | Whether and how to support local journalism | Comparative support schemes and safeguards for independence |
| Broadcast regulators | How community media are licensed and supported | Licensing frameworks and evidence |
| Philanthropic funders | Which local news models to fund | Evidence on sustainability and reach |
| Local governments | How to publish information and engage residents | Open government practice and local evidence |
Outputs this topic produces
- Guide to measuring local news provision
- Comparative notes on public support for local journalism
- Dialogue briefs on community media in crises
- Questions for local governments on information access
What experts ask.
Researchers on community information ask who is left out and how to reach them.
- Which groups are least served by mainstream information channels, and why?
- How do language and literacy barriers affect access to warnings and public guidance?
- What role do community radio, local media and trusted intermediaries play?
- How can information be made accessible to people with disabilities?
- How do communities' own information networks function, and how can institutions work with them?
Access is uneven by design.
Public information is often produced in national languages, in written form and through digital channels, which excludes speakers of minority languages, people with low literacy, older people without internet access and many people with disabilities. Migrants and displaced people may distrust authority sources or lack the networks through which information travels.
Communities develop their own information networks through local leaders, religious organisations, community radio and messaging groups. These networks can be faster and more trusted than authority channels but can also spread rumours. Effective approaches tend to involve communities in designing information, use multiple formats and languages, and work through trusted intermediaries.
Why now: local news has declined in many places, and community networks often carry crisis information faster than any institution. The platform is designed to convene community organisations and public bodies on how information flows locally, with communities setting the terms of their participation.
How the evidence is built, and where it stops.
- 01
Information needs assessment
Asking communities what information they need and how they receive it, with social and behavioural science. Assessments must reach those hardest to reach.
- 02
Accessibility review
Evaluating information against accessibility standards. Standards alone do not ensure comprehension.
- 03
Ethnographic research
Understanding local information practices. Time-intensive and context-specific.
- 04
Network mapping
Mapping community information flows with network science. Requires consent and trust.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Social and behavioural scienceMeasuring trust and exposure · Testing interventions · Qualitative study of information needsApplied here
- 02Network science and contagionDetecting coordinated behaviour · Tracing narrative spread · Mapping media ecosystemsApplied here
- 03Artificial intelligence and machine learningClassifier error in moderation · Synthetic media detection limits · Recommender auditsApplied here
Questions and answers.
What is a news desert?
Can public funding support local news without capturing it?
What is community radio?
Why does language matter so much in a crisis?
Are digital channels enough?
Does the platform produce translations or public information?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.