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 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
Two years ago to the month, I wrote in this column of my despair and disgust of the impunity with which society leaders and politicians didn’t just shade the truth, but buried it six-feet deep and then gleefully stomped on it. In the past week, a couple of things reminded me of that piece and about the role truth plays in our public discourse. It reminded me how fragile our grasp on reality has become, and why that matters.
Social media regulation has been a long time coming. For the last eighteen years we’ve been running a social experiment where we watch what happens when we allow children to grow up with unfettered access to this technology.
With all attention focused on the newsworthy candidate, it seems in this 2024 presidential election, the media is playing the same game as it did in 2016. It's about novelty rather than interrogating relevant issues in any depth.
Recent media pressure led to two high profile resignations. Joe Biden, after resisting pressure to do so, has abandoned his re-election bid and English professional football manager Gareth Southgate resigned. The part played by the media merits reflection on the human vulnerability of persons in public life and of those involved in reporting on it.
Journalists have an important place in society, and that place changes as society changes. In recent weeks, two separate legal investigations suggest that journalists understand their role to be actors in the story and not simply reporters of it.
Once upon a time it was fairly easy to distinguish fact from fiction, but now journalists in particular regularly merge the two. We are now forced to cope with notions such as alternative facts and the post-truth era. I, for one, cope badly with both, with this twisting of what I would like to be an essential and straightforward matter.
The departure of Stan Grant from his role at the ABC following racial abuse triggers collective dismay and brings to light the deeply rooted issue of racism in Australia. His exit from public life is a sobering reminder of the societal toll of bigotry, and underscores the urgent need to safeguard our public intellectuals.
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.
In an age where social media revels in candid snapshots of daily life, where is the line between what is private, personal, and public? As media columns increasingly hinge on intimate, unabashed tales, some view this as a poignant evolution, while others see a reckless blurring of boundaries. This exploration challenges our understanding of self-disclosure in a world ever-urging us to share.
Defending the rights of individuals and apportioning blame for failure to respect them are an important part of the human story, but they are not the whole story. Is there a path to a more just and compassionate society that goes beyond blame and focuses on solidarity?
In a recent meeting Pope Francis met the editors of European Jesuit cultural magazines. As usual in such meetings he did not give an address but invited the participants to ask questions. The questions ranged across a wide area, reflecting the different readership and religious culture of the magazines. Underlying the Pope’s responses lay a challenging and coherent approach to the Jesuit mission and to communication that invites self-reflection also among Jesuit magazines and their readers outside Europe.
1-12 out of 200 results.