Myanmar Spring Chronicle – August 2 Viewpoint
(MoeMaKa, August 3, 2025)
How Accurately and Fairly Can the Media Present the Truth?
A commentator identifying as Kachin, writing under the name Jan Khone (aka Naw Hkung), recently posted an article on his website titled “The Role of Information and the Inability to Accept Peace Dialogue in Myanmar’s Conflict.” In it, he offers an analytical perspective on Myanmar’s ongoing war and peace efforts through the lens of media coverage and public opinion.
Although little is known about the author’s background, his analytical framework presents some thought-provoking and logically sound arguments that are worth highlighting.
He notes that today, when the term “peace dialogue” is mentioned, many people instinctively respond with words like “surrender,” “compromise,” or “betrayal.” He argues this reaction is rooted in the belief that complete victory is achievable. As a result, urging people to accept a negotiated outcome feels like an intolerable demand when they believe victory is within reach.
He poses an important question: why do some call for political dialogue, while others view such talks as a threat to liberation or freedom from suffering? He proposes that the answer lies in six factors related to information and media access.
These six factors are:
-
Restricted access to news sources
-
Conflicting or inconsistent information
-
Differences in background knowledge when interpreting events
-
Differences in analytical ability
-
Lack (or weakness) of nonpartisan media and analysts
-
Dominance of propaganda in military news coverage, especially on social media
Regarding the first factor—restricted news sources—he explains that people tend to rely only on the outlets they choose or trust. When people consume news from different sources, they develop different understandings of the same events. In conflict zones, internet shutdowns and censorship make it even harder to get accurate information.
He points to a well-known saying: “The first casualty of war is truth.” During war, no armed group is inclined to report the whole truth. Each side emphasizes enemy casualties while concealing its own losses, hoping to demoralize the opponent and keep morale high on their side. This reality applies universally, and acknowledging it is a bitter truth.
On the second point—inconsistent information—he argues that different sides of the conflict exaggerate their own victories and downplay enemy strength. This distortion shapes public perception and can lead people to reject peace negotiations as unnecessary.
He illustrates the third factor—differences in how events are interpreted—with an example: when troops retreat, some call it a “strategic withdrawal,” while others see it as a defeat. The same event is understood in opposing ways, depending on one’s perspective.
The fourth factor—analytical capacity—plays a major role, he says. Some people lack the background knowledge or critical thinking skills to properly assess complex situations. This contributes to misunderstandings around the necessity or value of peace talks.
Fifth, he notes the absence or weakness of neutral media outlets and commentators. Many media organizations are heavily influenced by political agendas or ideological biases, making impartial analysis difficult. This creates a climate where propaganda drowns out truth, and where peace dialogue is increasingly misunderstood and rejected.
Sixth, he argues that military propaganda on social media buries alternative perspectives, reinforcing polarized opinions and hardening opposition to negotiation.
He concludes that Myanmar’s ongoing armed conflict must be analyzed in tandem with how the media shapes public perception. Since the 2021 coup, the media landscape in Myanmar has undergone massive upheaval—many outlets have been forced into exile, and journalists have been arrested or silenced.
Because of this repression, many media organizations have lost their neutrality, and some shifted into explicitly pro-resistance roles. In doing so, they often prioritize ideological alignment over fact-checking or professionalism. While this shift was largely driven by the repressive environment, it has led to a blurring of journalistic standards.
Sensational headlines, click-driven stories, and audience-targeted narratives dominate coverage. This trend can distance the public from the actual conditions on the ground.
The author also observes that truly nonpartisan, public-interest-focused journalism is becoming increasingly rare, not just in Myanmar but globally. Even world-renowned media outlets face political or financial pressure from their backers, which influences editorial decisions.
As a stark example, he cites how major outlets have avoided using the term “genocide” to describe the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza—despite international scholars doing so—due to editorial policies.
This shows how even respected international media are not immune to bias or manipulation, and why critical scrutiny of all media is essential.
In closing, the author argues two key points:
-
Peace dialogue is an essential political solution for Myanmar’s future.
-
Public understanding and acceptance of peace talks must be nurtured, despite differing viewpoints.