When most Thai media put on the #TeamThailand hat, they become mouthpieces for the state and the Thai military in times of war.
I t has been painfully slow. More than two weeks have passed, with Thai media largely reporting in a pro-war, cheerleading manner, before a media scholar has only just begun to express concern and gently ask whether Thai media are “reporting the truth or manufacturing conflict”.
This should not be surprising. More than 99% of Thai media are products of a nationalist education system that drills into people from childhood the idea that Thailand is the protagonist of this region, while neighbouring countries take turns being the ‘villains’ throughout history—whether as invaders (Burma sacked Ayutthaya twice) or as traitors (Cambodia during the era of King Preah Ramathibodi or King of Lavak), etc. This is taught without acknowledging that the other side interprets history differently. Even the Thai national anthem reinforces this mindset from a very young age, as it partly states: “Thailand loves peace, but is not cowardly in war.”
So how could Thailand ever be the villain?
Noted philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951), once said, in essence, that no one can truly think of themselves as evil, because if he did, he would be unable to live with that reality.
This idea reflects a deep psychological and philosophical insight: human beings—and societies—have self-defence mechanisms. Humans possess an instinct to protect the ego, the sense of self.
If we fully accepted that we were evil, our minds would collapse to the point where we could no longer go on living. Rationalisation is therefore crucial. When we do something wrong, we tend to create explanations that make our actions seem “necessary” or “reasonable”, in order to preserve the image that we are still good people.
For Wittgenstein, the hardest thing in life is not understanding the world, but accepting the complex truth about oneself.
Returning to the Thai press: Thai media have chosen to become part of “Team Thailand” from Day 1 of the war. Over the past two weeks, it has been almost impossible to distinguish mainstream mass media from state and military mouthpieces. They have effectively become semi-propaganda tools. There has been little serious questioning of key facts—for example, who actually fired first, which still cannot be conclusively proven.
In many areas that Thai troops have “reclaimed”, even though Thai authorities claim these are “Thai sovereign territories”, the Cambodian side has also long claimed overlapping rights to these areas and temples as well. Thai press conveniently forget the term “disputed territories”, however.
This shows that during wartime, Thai media have abandoned their duty to act as both a mirror and a lamp for society:
- a mirror that reflects complex, diverse, and sometimes contradictory facts and realities; and
- a lamp that illuminates, guides society, and questions whether information provided by the state is truly credible.
Instead, they report state claims as unquestionable truths. For example, if the Thai government says Cambodia attacked first, or claims that a Cambodian casino building housed scammers and/or Cambodian troops, Thai media should report that this is what the Thai state claims, while clearly stating to the public that the media cannot independently verify these facts beyond reasonable doubt. They should not present such claims as established truth without scepticism.
They have also failed to act as a lamp by proposing third or fourth alternatives for society, beyond the simplistic idea that the war must continue until one side is destroyed or accept defeat. (One possible alternative that comes to mind is designating disputed areas as zones owned by no single nation, or jointly owned and jointly administered by both countries.)
It is deeply tragic that for the past two and a half weeks, Thai media have performed little differently from the Public Relations Department or the Second Army Region’s Facebook page. (State media already exist to do this job—they do not need to duplicate it or compete with them.)
Worse still, many seem satisfied and intoxicated by their role as cheerleaders for continued war with Cambodia, despite the fact that those who suffer most are low-ranking soldiers on both sides and more than 700,000 civilians on both sides of the border who have been forced to evacuate.
Most Thai media have lost their way—far removed from serving the public. They can no longer distinguish between the interests of public and the interests of the state, which do not always align. They have abandoned their role as watchdogs, barking warnings to alert and remind the public.
They have strayed so far that they may no longer hear the voices of s media scholar who are shouting warnings, trying to bring them back to their senses. We may have to wait for history itself to judge the role of Thai media today—in the distant future.
Note: A Cambodian Facebook user who read the draft on Facebook comment to me saying:
“Thank you for your brave and thoughtful words, Mr. Pravit. I fully support your call for media to return to their core duty: to inform with integrity, not inflame with nationalism.
“I also want to add that this issue isn’t unique to Thailand. In Cambodia as well, many media outlets have fallen into the same trap—reporting only one side, amplifying nationalist sentiment, and abandoning journalistic professionalism. This pattern on both sides only deepens the divide and prolongs the suffering.
“We need more voices like yours—on both sides of the border—to remind us that truth and humanity must come before politics.”
My reply to him was: “ខេម ជិន Noted with thanks and your message is well taken. Cambodians will have to take the primary role in reminding the Cambodian press tghst gey role is to serve the Cambodian public. Let’s start by seeing them asking the Cambodian government why the total number of Cambodian soldiers killed and injured have yet to be disclosed. It’s Day 17 of the war now!”
____
