Three Observations About the New Round of Military Clashes Between Thailand and Cambodia
1. Both sides claim the other side fired first. Media outlets in both country cannot independently verify who actually initiated the shooting. And we should note this very important point. We owe it to the public to do so.
2. Thai and Cambodian media should clearly distinguish what is being said by military or government spokespersons from what is confirmed fact. For example, on the Thai side, reports should say: “The Army spokesperson said that Cambodia fired first,” rather than presenting it as an established truth. Responsible media must differentiate between their role and that of a military spokesperson, and refrain from writing short conflated reports such as “Cambodia launched the attack first” when Thai media cannot verify this on their own (and vice versa for Cambodian press).
For information coming from the government that is significant but cannot yet be independently verified—such as “who fired first”— should be stated clearly that the information cannot be confirmed by journalists.
3. Regarding the deployment of F-16s in a “retaliatory” strike after the death of a Thai soldier (my condolences to the soldier’s family), does this require approval from the Thai Prime Minister? How much control does the current civilian interim government actually have over the military? Or is the military deciding its own actions? Civil society must be cautious of the possible corrosion of the power of civilian supremacy over the military, as well have very little of that in Thailand to begin with.
P.S. War is not a computer games. Lives are loss and those killed have loved ones and family waiting at home. The media should not desensitised war by their choice of words.
______
