Between Truth and Buzz: The Media's Grey Area on the Cambodia-Thailand Conflict

When Cambodia and Thailand clash, particularly over sensitive border territories such as the Preah Vihear temple, the media unfortunately invite themselves to play a role in the crisis.

The border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand, which has now turned deadly, raises a very topical question: why are the media reporting sometimes contradictory figures on the number of victims, who is responsible and what actually happened? Behind the alarming news reports and official statements, a somewhat chaotic communications battle is raging, with each side defending its version of events and the reality becoming increasingly blurred.

According to news agencies and newspapers, there are significant discrepancies in the figures relating to the number of victims, responsibility for the attacks, the locations of the bombings and even the chronology of events. These discrepancies can be explained by several factors.

The media in each country tend to minimise their own responsibility, sometimes manipulating information for domestic political purposes. In this context, it seems clear that Thailand ‘fired the first shot’ and then tried to portray itself as the victim. When you live in Cambodia and know a little about the country's history, it is difficult to believe that a country that has suffered so much would want to engage in armed conflict with its neighbour or any other country.

Why does Thailand exploit information to such an extent?

Thailand's position in its border dispute with Cambodia, particularly near Khmer temples such as Preah Vihear, could be explained by these recurring acts of aggression fuelled by historical resentment over the loss of the Preah Vihear temple, which was ceded to Cambodia in 1907 during the colonial demarcation of borders. Many Thais still perceive this transfer as an injustice.

This conflict is being completely exploited for political purposes in Thailand to strengthen the sense of national unity or divert attention from internal difficulties. On several occasions, Thai leaders have already taken a firm stance towards Cambodia to appease nationalist pressure or weaken political opponents, particularly the army, which plays a central role in managing the crisis.

Thailand's current economic stagnation appears to be acting as a catalyst in the management of the conflict. After slowing growth in 2024, the Thai economy remains sluggish in 2025, with weak private consumption, high household debt, fragile exports and declining private investment.

Global trade tensions and a lack of competitiveness are likely to exacerbate this context of economic fragility and popular discontent. Hardening the national position on a sensitive border issue can undoubtedly serve to divert attention from domestic difficulties and rally the population around a common symbolic cause.

Access to information and the search for buzz

On the ground, gathering accurate data in border conflict zones is complex; journalists therefore rely on military or official sources, which are often late, approximate or completely biased.

Many international media outlets seek to create a buzz by presenting shocking reports or sensational testimonies, even if this means repeating approximations or, even worse, publishing ‘gory’ photos simply provided by the Thai army, without any verification, caption or explanation of the large pool of blood in front of a house published by an agency and widely shared with rubbing hands followed by hasty clicks on the article or post to count the "views, likes and reactions ". It's sad.

This information and these images, selected to attract an audience, can create a narrative that is far from reality, reinforcing confusion among the public and likely to add fuel to the fire.

Journalism, in such inflammatory contexts, must, it goes without saying, be rigorous. However, the pursuit of sensationalism, through the deliberate exaggeration (or minimisation) of human casualties, the premature designation of ‘those responsible’ without thorough investigation, statements from both sides or minimal verification, can serve as an additional trigger in an already tense situation.

This race for ‘buzz’ and breaking news overlooks the real consequences: the risk of escalation, stigmatisation of local populations and increased polarisation.

The dangerous game of buzz

In their quest for influence, the media are playing with fire. When truth becomes variable and emotion takes precedence, journalists' role as watchdogs or mediators is overshadowed by their role as protagonists in the conflict. They therefore have a dual responsibility:

• To report honestly and cautiously

• To refuse to fuel national rivalries

In the Cambodian-Thai conflict, the information war often prolongs the armed conflict. Journalistic ethics and the duty to verify remain the best defences against sensationalism.

The ‘grey areas’ in reports and facts are not inevitable; they are primarily a matter of editorial choices and professional conscience or lack thereof.