Cross-Border Cooperation Is Essential for Peace Journalism in the Cambodia–Thailand Conflict
By Sonny Inbaraj Krishnan and Pravit Rojanaphruk
W hen the Cambodia–Thailand border heats up, the most dangerous escalation unfolds not in the theatre of conflict but in competing narratives that follow — misinformation, ultra-nationalist spin, and instant accusations of bad faith. In such moments, cross-border peace journalism is essential.
The growing collaboration between Cambodianess and Khaosod English proves it can be done, but it is still the rare exception in a media landscape that too easily fuels confrontation.
For decades, tensions along this frontier have risen and receded in uneven cycles. Each new incident produces a familiar pattern: statements from both governments accusing one another, surging public outrage, rumors that outpace facts, and media narratives shaped by ultranationalist posturing.
Yet an overlooked solution sits within reach.
Cambodian and Thai journalists can profoundly influence how the public perceives the conflict. Through stronger cooperation, they can challenge misinformation, bring empathy into their reporting, and show the human impact on both sides. They can also illuminate practical paths toward resolving tensions and remind audiences in both countries that long-term stability and prosperity are far better served when Cambodians and Thais see each other as partners, not adversaries.
Peace journalism is not a soft option, nor does it diminish real grievances or downplay acts of aggression. It is a rigorous professional standard grounded in accuracy, responsibility, and context — qualities that matter even more when tensions run high. It encourages reporters to avoid inflammatory language, to centre the lived experiences of civilians, and to uncover the structural forces driving the conflict rather than simply amplifying militarized narratives from state actors or the sensationalist rhetoric pushed by influencers chasing attention, engagement, or donations.
In a border crisis where rumors move faster than verified information and official accounts often contradict each other, cooperation between Cambodian and Thai media is not merely aspirational. It is essential if both countries hope to prevent further military escalation and to counter the deepening prejudice and hostility taking root among ordinary people on both sides
Collaboration Between Cambodianess and Khaosod English
One encouraging example already exists. Cambodianess in Phnom Penh and Khaosod English in Bangkok have begun building the kind of cross-border collaboration that peace journalism requires.
Through regular editorial exchanges, dialogue and consultation, the two outlets compare notes, share analysis, and ensure that, as much as possible, their reporting reflects verified information from both sides of the border.
This cooperation includes publishing opinion pieces written by senior journalists simultaneously in Phnom Penh and Bangkok. These joint op-eds appear in English, Khmer, and Thai to reach diverse audiences and bridge linguistic divides.
Such initiatives demonstrate how coordinated storytelling can reduce misunderstanding and encourage the public to view the conflict through a broader, more nuanced lens. It is testament to our belief that all is not lost and we will not yield to the demagogues spilling out hatred towards our neighbors, be it Thailand or Cambodia.
Shared reporting structures can further strengthen this model. Joint Cambodian–Thai field teams can generate richer and more balanced coverage.
When reporters work side by side, they break down the national silos that often lead to incomplete or distorted narratives. A Cambodian reporter documenting evacuees in Oddar Meanchey and a Thai journalist interviewing displaced families in Sisaket can build a cross-border picture that reflects lives affected on both sides.
This approach not only elevates the accuracy of reporting but also signals a commitment to fairness and peace.
Editorial coordination does not have to rely on reporters being in the same location. Regular virtual meetings between Cambodian and Thai newsrooms can align verification processes before sensitive information is published. The technology to do this already exists. What is truly needed is mutual trust — or at least a willingness to cultivate it — and a shared commitment to humanity and peace.
Many inconsistencies that arose during previous border clashes emerged simply because journalists were working from different data pools. When outlets like Cambodianess and Khaosod English compare sources, quotes, and official statements before publication, they prevent confusing discrepancies and ensure that public debate is grounded in verified facts.
Joint Training By Trainers Who Have Worked in Other Conflicts
Joint training is another essential component. During border tensions, reporters are under immense pressure from audiences, social media commentators, and political actors to release coverage that aligns with national sentiment.
Collaborative workshops focusing on conflict-sensitive reporting, careful language choices, ethical sourcing, and trauma-informed interviewing can help journalists uphold standards even when tensions run high.
Trainers who have worked in other border conflicts can provide insight into how reporting choices can either escalate or de-escalate a situation.
Access to frontline areas remains a persistent challenge. Cambodian journalists may be blocked from entering parts of Thailand, and Thai reporters face similar restrictions in Cambodia. In these cases, cooperation across the border becomes even more valuable. Sharing field observations, photos, and verified notes from areas only one side can access creates a fuller and more credible account.
Misinformation is one of the most destabilizing forces during border clashes. Unverified content on Telegram, TikTok, and Facebook can shift public sentiment within minutes. A small cross-border verification network, supported by editors from outlets like Cambodianess and Khaosod English, could debunk or confirm claims quickly. Swift verification prevents unnecessary panic or anger at moments when emotions are already high.
Human-centered storytelling is another powerful tool for peace journalism. Most border residents do not speak the language of geopolitics. They worry about income, safety, and the future of their families.
Joint Cambodian–Thai feature stories that explore shared struggles, cross-border marriages, or the economic interdependence of border communities can replace abstract narratives with grounded human realities. These stories challenge simplistic portrayals of the “other side” and help audiences grasp the personal cost of conflict, rather than viewing the crisis as a zero-sum contest.
In a supposed zero-sum conflict, Thailand is already losing part of its export market in Cambodia.
Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen noted on November 17 that “the customer is king,” pointing out that Cambodia purchases around 160 billion baht — roughly $4.93 billion — worth of Thai goods each year. With parts of the Cambodian public now boycotting Thai products, Thai producers are feeling the impact.
But Hun Sen’s comments told only one part of the story.
The other side that was not mentioned by media in both countries is that Thailand is also deeply tied to Cambodia through tourism. Thais were the largest group of foreign visitors to Cambodia in 2024, with 1.9 million arrivals between January and November. Vietnamese tourists followed at 1.2 million during the same period, according to Cambodian government data. This level of interconnectedness is what the public in both countries needs to understand and remember.
Shared media reporting guidelines can further strengthen this spirit of collaboration to report from the perspective of both sides. Cambodian and Thai media organizations could work together to develop standards that emphasize careful sourcing, transparent attribution, and thoughtful language choices. Such principles would offer journalists a steady framework for navigating political sensitivities and help ensure that coverage remains fair, responsible, and firmly anchored in verified information.
Encouraging Public Dialogue Through Joint Media Platforms
Universities and civil society groups can support these efforts by hosting joint seminars on border history, legal frameworks, and conflict narratives. They can also amplify the voices of border communities, ensuring that public debate includes firsthand perspectives rather than only political speeches.
Joint media platforms offer another avenue for dialogue. A bilingual podcast or digital series co-produced by Cambodian and Thai journalists can elevate diverse viewpoints and bring audiences into conversation rather than confrontation. Such platforms can include reporters, residents, historians, and youth leaders who reframe the conflict as a shared regional challenge rather than a zero-sum rivalry.
Peace journalism is not an abstract ideal. It is a practical framework for reducing harm, improving accuracy, and supporting dialogue. The choices journalists make in words, sources, and collaborations can either deepen divides or build bridges. The developing cooperation between Cambodianess and Khaosod English shows that cross-border partnerships are possible.
In moments of crisis, collaboration becomes a stabilizing force. Through shared reporting, coordinated verification, and joint storytelling, Cambodian and Thai journalists can do more than describe the conflict. They can help shape a future where facts guide the narrative and where dialogue becomes the foundation for peace.
……….
Sonny Inbaraj Krishnan is news editor at Cambodianess. Pravit Rojanaphruk is a senior staff writer at the Bangkok-based Khaosod English digital portal. He attended the University of Oxford as a Reuters Fellow and a Chevening scholar. In 2017, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists awarded him the International Press Freedom Award.
