Persecution Watch

Tag: doctrine

  • Doctrine of Fear – How state media paints alternative beliefs as “threats.”

    Doctrine of Fear – How state media paints alternative beliefs as “threats.”






    Doctrine of Fear: State Media’s Portrayal of Alternative Beliefs as “Threats”

    Doctrine of Fear: State Media’s Portrayal of Alternative Beliefs as “Threats”

    In today’s world, the role of media is paramount in shaping public opinion. However, a growing concern arises when this power is used to perpetuate fear and marginalize alternative beliefs.

    “Media, if used rightly, can educate, inform, inspire, but unfortunately it can also be misused to create fear, spread hatred, and manipulate public opinion,”
    – Amitabh Bachchan, Indian actor and UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador (Source)

    The Doctrine of Fear: A Historical Perspective

    The concept of the “Doctrine of Fear” dates back to the Cold War era, where fear was intentionally instilled in the masses to support government policies and maintain social control.

    • Red Scare: The McCarthy Era in the United States, named after Senator Joseph McCarthy, saw a wave of fear-mongering about communist infiltration into American society (Source).
    • McCarthyism: This period was characterized by the use of fear, intimidation, and blacklisting to suppress dissent and perceived threats.

    Modern-Day Manifestations

    Fast forward to today, state media in various countries continues to employ similar tactics, using fear as a tool to sway public opinion and reinforce dominant narratives.

    “State media has become a powerful weapon that can create fear, manipulate emotions, and ultimately control the narrative. This is especially concerning when alternative viewpoints are suppressed or portrayed as threats,”
    – Maria Ressa, Philippine journalist and co-founder of Rappler (Source)

    The Impact on Society and Democracy

    The misuse of media for fear-mongering can have detrimental effects on society, including the erosion of trust in institutions, increased polarization, and a stifling of free speech.


  • Doctrine and Distance — The coldness that follows misunderstanding

    Doctrine and Distance — The coldness that follows misunderstanding

    In the realm of human interaction, doctrine often serves as both a unifying force and a formidable barrier. When misinterpreted or taken to extremes, these doctrines can create cold distances, alienating individuals and groups who were once aligned. This phenomenon can be observed in various contexts—religious, political, and even within families.

    The Nature of Doctrine

    Doctrine, by definition, consists of a set of beliefs held and taught by an organization. Its purpose is to provide guidance and clarity on complex issues. In religion, for instance, doctrines are the theological tenets that offer followers both spiritual and moral direction.

    However, when doctrine is followed dogmatically without room for interpretation or adaptation, it becomes more than just a guiding principle—it morphs into a dividing line. As noted by Jacob Bronowski, “Science is the acceptance of what works and the rejection of what does not. That needs more courage than we might think.” This perception is equally applicable to doctrines: they must be flexible enough to adapt and accept what works.

    Misunderstanding and Division

    Misunderstanding arises when the nuanced interpretation of a doctrine is lost, either through deliberate distortion or simple miscommunication. This loss is poignantly illustrated in historical religious schisms where singular differences in interpretation led to vast distances between communities that were once united.

    In politics, political doctrines can widen rifts between parties or nations, leading to impasses where dialogue becomes impossible. When a doctrine is interpreted as absolute, any deviation becomes heresy, and the warmth of compromise turns frigid. As authoritative voices clash over interpretations, the ideal of common ground becomes a distant, perhaps unreachable, dream.

    Bridging the Distance

    Bridging these doctrinal distances requires an openness to dialogue and a willingness to embrace complexities. Empathy plays a critical role in mitigating the coldness that arises from misunderstanding. When individuals remind themselves of their shared humanity, doctrine transforms from a rigid divisive tool into an enriching dialectic.

    “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” — George Bernard Shaw

    Echoing Shaw’s sentiment, life calls for clearer communication and sincere efforts to understand diverse perspectives. Only then can the warmth of unity take the place of the chill of misunderstanding.

    In conclusion, while doctrine can often put distance between individuals, it is through embracing empathy, dialogue, and adaptability that we can overcome these divides and foster communities resilient to misunderstanding.