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.
Ellis' work is a prime example of the notion advanced by the French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre: that committed literature, and the act of writing, are political and ethical acts. Even in a film script, one can ponder social political change. Always of the left, but never formally the structured party man of faction and following, the dishevelled, sometimes wild Ellis proved contrarian even to Labor stalwarts. There were never pious reflections, or unqualified praises.
One of the things we expect from our media is that they will ask the hard questions on an election trail. Today's editorial from the Daily Telegraph makes it clear that they believe only one party is worthy of your trust. If the mainstream media can no longer be trusted to ask the serious questions of both parties, perhaps it's time for the game to move elsewhere.
With the release of some frightening reports over the last 12 months, those who deny the scientific consensus on climate change will have to expand their list of 'alarmists' to include some unlikely suspects — the World Bank, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the International Energy Agency. When accountancy firms start sounding like environmental campaigners, the future looks very alarming indeed.
Atheist Richard Dawkins' debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in February was a gentlemanly affair. By contrast Dawkins' debate with Cardinal George Pell on the ABC's Q&A this week was billed as a 'title fight of belief'. As one comment on Twitter noted the next day, 'they both lost'.
The fact that we are 'discussing' more than ever before due to the internet and the blogosphere, does not prove that our democracy is in better shape. The environment precludes reasoning because reasoning requires a willingness to listen to the other and to approach questions through mutual respect.
Liberal Roman Catholics have particular reason to be perturbed at the influx of ex-Anglicans driven not by ecumenical zeal, but by dogged adherence to positions on women's ordination or human sexuality which bespeak a broader conservatism.
The lecturer's joke about religion is met with laughter. Here, 'faith' is the jester. In dismissing faith, we dismiss people for whom faith is central to the search for truth. We exclude them from that task of imagination and creation.
The internet raised Susan Boyle to superstardom, while traditional media heaped her with disparagement and conjecture. Might the more democratic realm of new media might provide a more saintly balance to the traditional tabloid monster?
Bloggers are being hunted and jailed in countries such as Burma and Iran. In Western nations they are incurring the wrath of disgruntled mainstream journalists. The plight of St Mary's South Brisbane holds a useful metaphor for this crusade on free speech.
Online publications know that the flame throwers among those who post comments invariably draw a crowd. Such an environment is potentially fertile ground for character assassination, rather than reasoned argument.
Cult filmmaker Romero fears that new media has, rather than democratising the news, led to increased tribalism that is divisive rather than unifying. He articulates these fears in his latest high-concept zombie film, Diary of the Dead.
Margaret Cassidy considers how the blogs of two young women reflect their very different world views.