In the last couple of weeks, there has been much discussion about the spread of fake news concerning the war and conflict between Thailand and Cambodia.
Last week, August 9, 2025, the Thai army reported that three Thai soldiers were injured after stepping on a Cambodian landmine at the border. Shortly after, the Cambodian Ministry of Defense denied the claim, stating that the landmine was not theirs.
The question is, both sides’ media and citizens cannot independently verify the information themselves. The same goes for news from any two conflicting countries—for example, which side fired first, or which side violated the ceasefire agreement.
The truth is that both the media and the vast majority of citizens in both countries will ‘naturally’ believe their own nation’s official sources and news outlets, assuming they are speaking the truth. This is because they are citizens of that nation. They see it as: “If I’m a Thai person, why should I not believe the Thai military and government? Why should I instead believe Cambodia?”
Furthermore, how many Thai media outlets and how many Thais would dare to question the information and news that the Thai military and Thai government feed them multiple times a day? How much of it is real, how much is fake news? And if a Thai media outlet is suspicious of the information received from the Thai army or government, how many of them would dare to state at the end of the news report, “We cannot independently verify the information.”
Additionally, how many even question whether the Thai side might not be in the right? This is an extremely difficult thing to do because Thailand is ‘our side.’ Therefore, our side cannot possibly be the villain. Hardly anyone wants to believe that their side is the villain, the evil one, the aggressor.
A lack of access to primary sources in the war coverage is a problem for Thai media in times of war, especially this war. This is particularly true when the border conflict zones are blocked off, preventing media or the public from getting close. It’s also true that many of today’s journalists, reporters, and photographers are not willing or ready to risk their lives facing bullets, landmines, or missiles.
As Somsak Jeamteerasakul, a noted exiled critic of the Thai monarchy posted a few days ago.
“As far as I know, there is not even a single journalist who has gone to the front lines to report on the fighting between Thailand and Cambodia and has actually seen the clashes.
“For this reason, all the ‘news’ about the fighting, written in great detail by journalists and countless others, is ultimately sourced entirely from the Thai military.”
These two paragraphs from Somsak led me to post a satirical response the other day too:
“As far as I know, there is not even a single person among those who post various [negative] stories about the monarchy who has gone to see the things they talk about inside the palace or on the front lines and has actually seen anything they talk about concerning the monarchy.
“For this reason, all the ‘news’ about the monarchy, written in great detail by keyboard warriors in Thailand, such as on the ‘Royalist Marketplace’ (talat luang), and by those in exile abroad, is ultimately sourced entirely from… [fill in the blank yourself]”
My satire of Somsak, who was formerly a lecturer of history at Thammasat University, led to a response from him a few hours later:
“Those two situations are not comparable because a key factor that creates a problem in one (the war) does not exist in the other.
That is, the fighting is a matter of two enemy countries at war. Therefore, to get a real picture of the fighting, there must be journalists stationed at the actual battle sites on both sides. In Thailand’s case, there are none. What the fighting is like is heard from only one side: Thailand itself.
“The other matter does not have this problem. There are supporters and opponents [of the Thai monarchy] to choose from all the time.
This issue also has many different aspects…
(Too lazy to write, because the comparison is flawed.)“
After reading Somsak’s response, I feel that sometimes everyone needs a mirror to self-reflect. If they refuse to find one themselves, others who care should hold up a large mirror for them to examine themselves.
Somsak should not have a double standard, using a flawed logical method to get to the truth about the monarchy and posting about the monarchy loosely in many cases, while at the same time demanding that the media have a higher standard for reporting factual news about the Thai-Cambodian war.
I agree with Somsak’s first post, and I would like to suggest that whenever Thai media report information from the Thai state and feel unsure about the data or figures, they should inform the public in the news report that they “cannot independently verify the information given by the government or the military as of press time.”
However, I believe that the deductive reasoning method of getting to the truth and facts about the monarchy used by Somsak and many others who oppose the lèse-majesté law is flawed and problematic as well. I see these two issues as the same in the sense that they both concern the logical problem of getting to facts and truth and of determining what is real, what is fake, and what is trustworthy.
In the case of the war, many Thais are prejudiced against Cambodia because of their patriotism, or even ultranationalism. In the case of the monarchy, online groups like the ‘Royalist Marketplace’ and people who frequently post about the monarchy and criticize the royal defamation law, are also prejudiced against the monarchy. (Some are obsessed, posting negative information, some real and some fake, almost every day or multiple times a day on social media. I feel sorry for these people because they do not love or revere the monarchy, but their lives seem cursed to post about the monarchy and revolve around the institution almost daily).
Somsak may have written that, “The two situations are not comparable,” but the problem regarding the method of accessing the truth (whether about the war or the monarchy) is comparable. Although access to the truth about the monarchy is severely restricted by the anachronistic and controversial royal defamation law and self-censorship in the mainstream Thai media, at the same time, the prejudice of a number of people who do not favour the monarchy causes them to neglect attempts to verify information or makes them willing to believe fake news. This is similar to the situation during the war, where the majority of Thai people who hate Cambodia and view all Cambodians as enemies are readily willing to believe fake news and negative information about Cambodia.
In both cases, these people may not be stupid, but they choose to believe, consume, and share what they already believe in as it reflect and sustain their prejudice – whether it’s against Cambodians or the Thai monarchy. The more dramatic or “bizarre” the news is (without being able to verify the facts), the more popular and well-received it is. (In the case of the Thai-Cambodian war, two examples are the AI-generated image of a beautiful teenage girl holding a photo of her deceased soldier father, which was widely shared and significantly drive social media engagement, or the unverified photo of Cambodian Defence Ministry spokesperson Maly Socheata having “an affair” with Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen)
Conclusion
The point is not which issue is more important, but rather the desire to believe and consume negative information or fake news—or information that cannot yet be verified—simply because the recipient is already full of prejudice (whether against Cambodia or the Thai monarchy). They are therefore willing and ready to believe in negative information about the people or side they dislike or even abhor.
The more negative and bizarre the news and information, the “better” it is. It sells well and gets shared widely and quickly, leading to high engagement. The verification of facts is a secondary concern or has no importance because these people are blinded by prejudice. Therefore, the problems in the logic and process of accessing facts and truth exist at all levels: the originator of the message, the news item, the recipients who consume the news and information, and the people who share the news and information.
P.S. One of my life philosophies is: We cannot choose the era or place (country) where we are born, and we are enormously influenced by our motherland and the era in which we grew up and lived. But at the very least, it would be good for our understanding of life if we could try to recognize and be aware of the influence of these two important factors that shape us.