[Beyond DUNIA] Watchdogs or Mouthpieces? The Media in Thailand’s 2026 Election

The Thai general election held on February 8, 2026, was not merely a reshuffling of power; it was an election that demonstrated the emotional undercurrents upon which politics operates. The initial lead held by the reformist People’s Party in several polls collapsed, and the ultra-nationalist, pro-military Bhumjaithai Party emerged as the largest party in parliament. Campaigning and policy competition alone cannot fully explain this outcome. The decisive variable was not policy but a "shift in sentiment"—specifically, the resurgence of nationalism surrounding the 2025 Thai-Cambodian border conflict.

This nationalism was not spontaneous. In the months leading up to the election, as tensions escalated along the Thai-Cambodian border, the Thai media environment reconstructed the conflict not as a diplomatic or historical issue, but as a "security crisis threatening national existence." This public opinion landscape was not confined to traditional media.

Cambodian political scientist Kin Phea, in an interview with Dunia, analyzed that "narrative framing plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion in Thailand, where recent online actors have engaged in information warfare against Cambodia, leveraging digital pressure to dictate domestic political stances and constrain diplomatic flexibility."

He also noted that historically, Thai political instability has often coincided with heightened tensions on the Cambodian border. "Whenever Thailand’s internal politics became unstable, there has been a tendency for tensions to rise at the Cambodian border, suggesting that domestic political pressure is sometimes diverted outward through border conflicts," he said. This analysis illustrates that border disputes have functioned as a political resource consumed as an extension of domestic politics rather than a simple clash between two nations.

Foreign Policy analyzed the 2025 Thai-Cambodian border conflict, stating that "border clashes reignited nationalism and pro-military sentiment within Thailand, granting the conservative camp a decisive advantage in the election." Even after Thai fighter jets conducted airstrikes deep into Cambodia’s Siem Reap province in December 2025, the security frame was repeatedly invoked by both politicians and the media.

The role of mainstream Thai media in this process was critical. Thai journalist Supalak Ganjanakhundee pointed out in an interview with Dunia: "The military set the tone and narrative through the media. They mobilized social media and its affiliates to incite nationalist sentiment and anti-Cambodian feelings across Thailand." He added, "Even looking at English-language outlets like The Nation or the Bangkok Post, you can see everything reported from a military or tactical warfare perspective."

The Bangkok Post, Thailand's leading English-language daily, covered the border clashes by focusing on announcements from the military and government. Regarding the Thai military's airstrikes, phrases such as "the situation is under control" and "necessary response" were repeated, framing the conflict as a technically managed security matter rather than a result of political and diplomatic judgment. While appearing neutral, this reporting had the effect of naturally isolating the military's kinetic actions from public debate.

Breaking news media also played a significant role. The online outlet Khaosod and its English edition provided real-time updates on casualty counts, resident evacuations, troop movements, and border closures. While these reports vividly conveyed the urgency of the scene, they simultaneously locked readers into a state of continuous crisis. Questions about why the conflict intensified at that specific moment or the political implications of the border escalation gradually vanished.

Interestingly, these issues were recognized even within the Thai media. In late 2025, Khaosod English published a column titled "When Most Thai Media Turn into Military Mouthpieces under #TeamThailand," self-reflecting that many Thai media outlets acted as "loudspeakers," uncritically relaying military briefings during the border conflict. The piece pointed out that as patriotic hashtags merged with frontline reporting, the media effectively abdicated its role as a watchdog.

Thai-language mass-market dailies like Thai Rath added a language of emotion to this trend. Terms such as "Cambodian provocation," "defense of sovereignty," and "resolute response" were frequently used, reconstructing the border conflict not as a political issue but as a moral confrontation. The military was mythologized as the "guardian of the motherland," while political forces advocating for caution, dialogue, or peace were implicitly pushed to the margins as weak or unpatriotic. Another feature article by Khaosod English, "Thais Struggle with Ultra-Nationalism as Thai-Cambodian Conflict Continues," reported internal concerns about the spread of excessive nationalism throughout Thai society in this atmosphere.

Of course, dissenting voices existed. The independent online outlet Prachatai repeatedly raised questions about the responsibility for the escalation, the potential for civilian casualties, and the impact of the nationalist frenzy erupting on both countries' social media platforms on the election. However, these analyses failed to gain sufficient traction within mainstream broadcasts, major portals, and algorithm-driven social media environments. The criticism existed but remained on the periphery during the election cycle.

Thus, these different reporting styles functioned in a complementary manner. Mainstream headlines normalized the military's authority, breaking news amplified the sense of crisis, and mass-market tabloids fixed nationalism as a moral value. As a result, ultra-nationalism became the dominant sentiment of the election cycle without the need for anyone to overtly incite it. This environment forced the People’s Party—which had campaigned on military reform—into a defensive position and became a decisive electoral asset for conservative and pro-military forces.

This general election was not one manipulated by blatant censorship or propaganda. Rather, it was an election where repeated reporting tones and frames gradually shifted the emotional landscape of the voters. What remained longer than the gunfire at the border was the sense of crisis and "security-first" ideology accumulated by the news. The 2026 Thai general election will be remembered as a case where the sentiment surrounding crisis and patriotism overwhelmed policy competition and reform agendas in the political decision-making of citizens.

Reporting Seulki Lee - skidolma@thedunia.org