Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 24 results, only the first 24 are displayed here.
Become a subscriber for more search results.
Amid rising hate speech and tighter laws, something deeper festers. In a culture wired for outrage and shaped by tribal algorithms, we’re learning not just to disagree, but to despise. What happens when identity is built on enmity, and public debate becomes less about ideas and more about who we’re against?
From reality TV’s contrived narratives to global news shaped by biases, we rarely consume truth unfiltered. Why does raw reality feel unbearable — and how does this shape our lives?
Despite affecting millions, systemic and event-driven poverty is rarely discussed by politicians. In a nation facing growing economic uncertainty, can we afford to continue overlooking those most vulnerable to financial and social hardship?
Last month, Kamala Harris faced off with Trump in what may be the only debate of the 2024 race for the White House. As we revisit the event, it’s clear that the real takeaway isn’t found in the limited substance offered to voters. Rather, it’s a stark reminder of how far the standards for such political showdowns have fallen, leaving us to question the usefulness of this once-crucial platform for democratic discourse.
How do you respond, when members of your own tribe share their distaste towards those who rub them up the wrong way? Do you ‘unfollow’? Do you engage? And if you vent against those who who offend with their own dearth of tolerance, are you guilty of doing the same?
The response to the Cass Review by gender medicine specialists and medical authorities in Australia has been deafening silence. Regardless of your position on gender-affirming care, it is unconscionable to stand in the way of a review that would allow for systemic problems to be addressed.
Can a journalist responsibly undertake impartial reporting while receiving benefits? For an industry founded on the principle of publishing with neither fear nor favour, the acceptance of favours has possibly outweighed journalistic responsibility towards an Australian public seeking objective knowledge.
As our teams struggle for victory on the playing field, is there a deeper meaning to winning that transcends mere conquest? Could our obsession with triumph be being challenged by a more nuanced understanding of success, encompassing not just the game, but politics, relationships, and the very essence of human connection?
The landscape has changed, and there is no going back. Individual journalists are now integrated into the ranks of pundits, urgers and persuaders who abound online. At their employers’ behest, they blog, they podcast, they ‘engage’ as the current jargon has it, with those who post comments to their articles online. (From 2021)
At the intersection of myth, science, and law is the contentious case of Kathleen Folbigg, accused of being a modern-day Medea. Convicted of killing her children and later exonerated, Folbigg’s story serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of science in legal judgments and societal myths of motherhood cloud our interpretation of facts.
Amidst escalating tensions, the ACT government's move to acquire Calvary Public Hospital is facing strong backlash from the church. With claims of hasty decision-making and allegations of anti-religion bias dominating the discourse, this crisis highlights the societal shift towards secularism and questions the role of religious entities in managing public services.
The Church must speak up to be relevant, but those who seek to ‘speak for the church’ must be brave. They risk exposing themselves to claims of bias unless they stick to a very narrow agenda and speak in extremely measured terms. Yet if they are too bland they risk being irrelevant to the sharp end of political debate and their intervention becomes little more than a symbolic ritual.
1-12 out of 24 results.