Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF) troops guard the ancient temple of Preah Vihear, as the Kingdom’s flag flies overhead. Post Staff
When the possibility of military action raises its head, the role of journalists becomes more crucial than ever.
Puy Kea, president of the Club of Cambodian Journalists (CCJ), recently delivered a vital message about the responsibilities of the media when reporting on territorial disputes or potential armed conflict.
His speech served as a timely reminder of the delicate balance journalists must strike between informing the public and safeguarding national security, coming just days after a Cambodian soldier was killed in a brief exchange of fire with Thai troops on the border in Preah Vihear province.
According to Kea, the first and foremost duty of journalists during such crises is to verify all information through reliable and official sources — such as statements from the Ministry of National Defence or government spokespeople.
Accurate reporting should detail the location, timing, extent of the conflict and any resulting casualties.
Kea cautioned media professionals against using alarmist headlines that might cause unnecessary panic.
“Instead of screaming ‘war has broken out,’ a headline such as ‘border skirmishes intensify’ offers the public necessary facts without fear-mongering,” he explained.
He took to his Telegram channel to remind journalists that they must also keep the public updated on the government’s official response.
Whether it’s mobilising troops, filing formal protests, or appealing to international bodies like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or ASEAN for assistance, such information is vital in helping citizens understand the scope of the situation and the measures being taken to protect national interests.
In the age of social media, misinformation and rumours spread rapidly, he warned.
“Journalists should avoid sharing unverified information or graphic images that could harm public morale or inflame tensions,” said Kea.
Instead, the media should rely only on confirmed facts to maintain credibility and avoid adding fuel to the fire.
Language choice plays a significant role in shaping public perception.
The CCJ president advises reporters to use neutral, non-inflammatory terms such as “border forces” rather than “enemy” or “invader,” unless officially designated as such by the government.
This approach prevents unnecessary hostility towards neighbouring populations, who may not be involved in the conflict.
Beyond reporting events, journalists have a responsibility to contribute to national unity.
Sharing public safety instructions, evacuation plans and emergency contact information helps maintain calm and order.
“Citizens should be urged to follow official guidance and remain composed,” Kea noted.
A complete picture includes diplomatic activities undertaken by the government and international organisations working to resolve the crisis peacefully.
Providing this context reassures the public that efforts toward a non-violent resolution continue alongside military preparedness, he explained.
One of the most sensitive aspects of crisis reporting involves information about military operations.
Kea emphasised that journalists must avoid disclosing troop movements, strategic locations or operational details that could be exploited by potential aggressors.
“Cooperation with authorities ensures that reporting does not compromise national defence,” he said.
Understanding the roots of border disputes helps the public grasp the situation’s complexity.
Journalists are encouraged to include background information on historical treaties and past events, relying on expert analysis from military strategists, international lawyers and diplomats rather than personal opinions.
Kea addresses a common question: Is it wrong for journalists to report on military weapons and equipment during a conflict?
He clarifies that while journalists have the right to inform the public, they must do so within legal boundaries and with caution.
Responsible reporting can boost public morale and demonstrate military readiness.
“However, revealing too much — such as exact troop positions or secret systems — risks national security and could disrupt military strategy or diplomatic negotiations,” said Kea.
He warns against exaggerating military information for sensational effect, as it may incite fear or panic rather than serve the public interest.
