(Phnom Penh): I’ve been a long-time Bloomberg subscriber. I value its data-driven reporting and editorial standards, especially in complex geopolitical matters.

But the recent article, “What Was Behind the Deadly Thailand-Cambodia Border Clash?”, left me concerned.

On the surface, it appears objective—just the facts, presented cleanly.

But look a little closer, and you’ll find the subtle fingerprints of national bias.

The piece was written by a Thai reporter. And while I don’t question her professionalism, expecting full neutrality in a Thailand-Cambodia conflict is… challenging.

Here’s what a thorough fact-check reveals:

1. Framing the Aggressor

“Each side claimed the other was the aggressor…”

Yet the lead image?

A Thai house destroyed by “Cambodian artillery.”

No photos of Cambodian civilians. No damage shown from Thai strikes.

Even before a word is read, the image frames Cambodia as the aggressor—visually biasing the reader from the outset.

2. The “Trigger” Bias

“The trigger was a Thai soldier stepping on a land mine…”

This accepts the Thai narrative as fact.

Cambodia’s position? Thai troops had strayed from agreed patrol routes into known minefields in Cambodian territory.

Bloomberg presents that only as a denial—not as a legitimate counter-claim.

The result? Thai escalation is framed as reactive and justified.

3. Skewed Language

“Thailand said its marine forces joined the fight to push back Cambodian incursion.”

But Thai fighter jet strikes into Cambodia?

Never called an “incursion.”

Cambodia called them “unprovoked attacks,” but that language never appears.

Bias isn’t just in what’s said—it’s in what’s emphasized, and what’s left out.

4. The Silent Omission: Cluster Munitions

Cambodia accused Thailand of using cluster munitions—banned under international law.

Human Rights Watch condemned it.
A Thai military spokesperson admitted they could be used “when necessary.”

Bloomberg? Silent.

Omitting this shields Thailand from global scrutiny—and undermines readers’ understanding of the conflict’s full gravity.

5. Military Technology Framing & Origins

“Thailand… has one of the region’s most capable militaries and buys much of their equipment from the US and Europe. Cambodia… gets almost all of its weaponry from China, much of which is based on older technology.”

The implication? Thailand = modern, responsible, legitimate.

Cambodia = outdated, inferior, suspicious.

Conveniently, Bloomberg omits that Thailand’s arsenal includes Cold War-era U.S. tanks and recently acquired Chinese VT-4s.

Why this matters:

Bloomberg holds a global reputation for rigor and fairness. I expect better.

When subtle biases shape coverage of a regional conflict, it warps perception—at home and abroad.

Cambodia deserves fairer coverage.
The truth deserves fuller context.

And readers deserve better than selective framing and omissions.

This article was written by Gabriel Tan.
=FRESH NEWS