A Media Revolution for Economics

For too long, governments and corporations have worshiped growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the only route to prosperity, even as inequality soars and ecosystems collapse. 

Isn’t it time to abandon this outdated obsession and replace it with a vision fit for the 21st century? Economist Kate Raworth’s placard refers to her game-changing model for true prosperity – Doughnut Economics – a manifesto to rewrite the rules of the economy before it destroys the living planet. An economy that meets the needs of all people within the means of the Earth.

The “doughnut” model draws the line between justice and destruction. The inner ring marks the social foundation –  every person’s right to food, health, housing, education, and equality. The outer ring is the ecological ceiling –  the limits of our planet’s ability to support life. Between these two lies the safe and just space for humanity. Right now, we’re overshooting and undershooting: billions left behind, and the Earth pushed beyond its limits. And yet, despite all the evidence, all we hear from the news media is the assumption that ‘business as usual’, i.e. growth, is the only option.

Humanity is currently operating in a state of ecological overshoot, consuming natural resources at a rate that exceeds the planet’s capacity for regeneration. According to estimates from the Global Footprint Network, humanity is using nature 1.7 times faster than our planet’s biocapacity can regenerate. Such overconsumption depletes forests, overexploits marine ecosystems, and accelerates the combustion of fossil fuels, thereby generating ecological debt and contributing to widespread environmental degradation.

Professor of Sustainable Development at the University of Surrey and Director of the Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity in the UK Tim Jackson, for example, has shown that if the developed nations grew GDP by 2% over coming decades, and by 2050 the global population had achieved the same level, the global economy would be 15 times larger than it is today. If it grew at 3% from then on it would be 30 times larger than the current economy by 2073, and 60 times larger before the end of this century.

Given that the global economy is already in gross ecological overshoot, just imagine the environmental burdens of a global economy fifteen, thirty, or sixty times bigger than today. What makes this growth trajectory all the more terrifying is that if we asked politicians whether they’d prefer 4% growth to 3%, they’d all say yes, and the exponential growth scenario just described would become even more absurd. It seems too much growth is never enough. 

In a report published just after the economic crisis of 2008, the Deutsche Bank identified a “green sweet spot” as an attractive focus for an economic stimulus spending consisting of investment in energy efficient buildings, the electricity grid, renewable energy and public transportation.  And a study by the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute calculated that spending $100 billion on these areas over a two year period would create 2 million new jobs. 

Anyone who still believes GDP growth is the only measure of progress might like to imagine  a Petri dish of bacteria. Watch it multiply until it runs out of nutrients or chokes on its own waste. That’s what endless growth looks like.

Now imagine humanity: eight billion, soon eleven, all chasing the “Western dream” on one exhausted planet. From space, Earth must look like that Petri dish –  a bright, frantic bloom consuming its own future. Unless we change course, the experiment ends the same way: collapse.

It’s time to stop worshipping growth and start building balance before the dish goes dark.

The Doughnut Economics framework demands a revolution in thinking — seven radical shifts:

1. Change the goal: ditch GDP, aim for collective thriving – a wellbeing economy.
2. See the big picture: the economy is part of society, which depends on nature.
3. Nurture human nature: we’re not selfish consumers but cooperative, creative beings.
4. Get savvy with systems: economies are living systems – unpredictable, adaptable, and full of leverage points for change.
5. Design to distribute: build fairness into the system from the start.
6. Create to regenerate: stop extracting, start restoring.
7. Be agnostic about growth: design economies that can thrive without endless extraction and expansion.

Globally, news outlets of all political affiliations present extractive growth as the only option whether due to economic blinkers or the malignant influence of extractive businesses.

Doughnut Economics is a blueprint for transformation. It challenges activists, policymakers, and citizens alike: stop chasing growth, start building balance. The future depends on it.

We are all caught in the tramlines of consumerism which is consuming the planet – and crucially the malignant media are ignoring it. Partisan reporting and high carbon product advertising hold us in thrall. 

But in reality, as Tim Jackson says:

“Prosperity in any meaningful sense of the term is about the quality of our lives and relationships, about the resilience of our communities and about our sense of individual and collective meaning […]. Prosperity itself –  as the Latin roots of the English word reveal –  is about hope. Hope for the future, hope for our children, hope for ourselves. An economics of hope remains a task worth engaging in.” 

It is time for honest reporting on the bright future a carbon free world heralds as well as the disaster that lies ahead if we do not change course. 

Infinite growth on a finite planet is madness.

We need a Media Revolution for the economy.

Freedom of expression is at the heart of democracy. Yet ‘free speech’ is constantly wheeled out as an excuse for attacks on democracy – blatant lies and propaganda that mislead the public, stir up division and provoke hate-fuelled violence.

Racist rage-baiting, vicious stereotyping and fabricated allegations are targeted at those who the speaker wants to shame or silence. Critics of this so-called ‘free speech’ are accused of promoting ‘cancel culture’ and stifling open debate.

The media lap it up, because angry, emotive slogans make strong headlines and grab attention online. Oh, and because in many cases those media outlets are politically and financially hand in glove with the powers behind the propaganda.

It’s not ‘free speech’ when someone’s paying for it.

[ VIEW ON BLUESKY | X | INSTAGRAM ]

A media revolution for free speech means reclaiming the true meaning and intent of the principle, and putting it into practice.

Carrying the torch for human rights

Progressive free speech has carried humanity forward. It gave abolitionists the power to challenge slavery, suffragettes the power to demand the vote, and civil rights leaders the power to break segregation. Anti-colonial leaders across Africa, Asia and Latin America relied on their voices — often branded as “subversive” or “terrorist” — to expose imperial violence and claim independence. These declarations were dangerous to the powers of their day, but they were the lifeblood of progress. Without the right to speak truth to power, none of these movements would have won through.

Yet history also shows us the power of hate speech in the media as a political weapon. Nazi propaganda in 1930s Germany did not only accompany the Holocaust — it deliberately prepared the ground for it. In Rwanda, instigators of the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi people used radio broadcasts to brand the Tutsi people “cockroaches” and openly call for their extermination.   

In each case, words were not commentary – they were inflammatory. They lit the fuse. That is why international human rights law has always distinguished between expression that challenges power and expression that incites violence. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN in 1966, makes this distinction explicit .

Today, that distinction is being deliberately blurred – and in some cases, completely ignored.  On 13 September 2025, Elon Musk appeared by video at an anti-migrant rally in London organised by the far-right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson, and billed as a demonstration in support of free speech. Musk declared: “violence is coming to you” and “you either fight back or you die.” He also called for the dissolution of parliament before the next general election. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the remarks as “dangerous and inflammatory” but stopped short of taking any action against Musk.

What makes Musk’s speech especially volatile is not just the content of his words, but the reach he can guarantee for them. In 2023, he reportedly instructed engineers at X (formerly Twitter)to change the platform’s algorithm so that his own posts would always appear more prominently in people’s feeds, whether they followed him or not . When someone who controls both message and distribution seeks to stir up violence, ‘free speech’ is a flimsy excuse for his actions.

And this is not only a British or American issue. In Myanmar, Facebook admitted that its platform had allowed hate speech against the Rohingya minority to spread unchecked, fuelling ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In Brazil, disinformation was circulated on WhatsApp before and during elections, undermining trust in democratic institutions under President Jair Bolsonaro. In Kenya, coordinated online hate campaigns have stoked ethnic violence around elections, leaving scars that last for generations . In India, mainstream TV channels have been criticised for amplifying divisive rhetoric against Muslims, emboldening extremist mobs.

Across the world, the pattern repeats: words become weapons, with the media as their mouthpiece.

So what does a media revolution for free speech look like? Well, let’s go back to the reasons why freedom of speech was established – as a right, not a get-out clause.

 First, it means redrawing the boundaries with clarity — and enforcing them. Speech that challenges power, including dissent or satire, must be protected; speech calculated to provoke violence or hatred must not. The Media Freedom & Accountability Bill — a new UK bill, (LINK) drafted and proposed by campaign group Hacked Off — shows that this is possible. It proposes enforceable duties for national newspapers and websites to prevent disinformation, protect against intrusion, and end discrimination and hate, while guaranteeing freedom of the press and protecting journalistic independence. This is how to protect dissent while refusing protection for harm.

Second, it means strengthening media literacy. If citizens can spot inflammatory rhetoric, fearmongering headlines, and fake “free speech” excuses for propaganda, we turn manipulation into empowerment. News Clubs – being set up by Media Revolution and others – are one way of introducing these skills into communities.  

Third, it means real accountability for the powerful. Politicians, media hosts, and influencers who whip up hatred must face consequences — not applause — for putting lives at risk. The Media Freedom & Accountability Bill in the UK would empower OFCOM to investigate and fine outlets that spread harmful falsehoods, and require corrections to be published prominently – and this could set a precedent around the world. 

Free speech is vital — it has carried every liberation struggle in history. But when it becomes a weapon of oppression, it violates the social contract of mutual respect and equality. Exercising free speech to incite harm or intolerance is not an act of liberty — it is a direct threat to the fabric of a democratic society.

In this context, exercising free speech to incite harm or intolerance is not only morally damaging but also a threat to the cohesive fabric of a society built on respect and inclusion. In short, it is anything but an instrument of freedom.

We need a media revolution for free speech: one that defends the powerless, challenges the harmful, and equips people everywhere to recognise the difference. Because ‘free speech’ is not okay when the malignant media decide whose voices to amplify.