junta, journalists languished in the country’s 43 prisons. Even after political reforms began in 2011, the imprisonment of journalists continued (Reporters Sans Frontières, 2012). Harassed by the state, it is difficult for journalists in transitional states to remain neutral observers of political events. Many of Myanmar’s journalists are members of the NLD or the ‘88 movement’ (Pidduck, 2012).23 This is especially true of many of the formermedia-in-exile that began returning to Myanmar following the start of reforms in 2011.24 By engaging in political struggles against state leaders, journalist-activists provided the authorities with justification for restricting media freedom. Differences in attitudes between the media and state elites over the proper functioning of the media have led to the rolling back of political reforms and media freedom in Russia, Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Philippines and Iraq (Reporters Sans Frontières, 2011/2012). A politicized media, however, is not incompatible with democracy. In their seminal work on comparative media systems, Hallin and Mancini identify a ‘Polarized Pluralism Model’ of the media that is dominant in Southern Europe. Under this model, political parallelism, instrumentalism and commentary-orientated journalism dominate the media system (2004, p. 67). External pluralism guarantees that a wide range of political voices can be heard in the public sphere. The rule of law ensures the media freedom from state harassment. But in Myanmar under military-backed rule, opposition media did not face a level playing field with their state-run competitors. Furthermore, pluralism was limited by the legal framework in which the media operated, providing state authorities with a choice of methods for silencing their critics. Despite some significant political reforms, at the time of the 2015 elections, Myanmar was far from a democratic system. Many journalists therefore contended that it was inappropriate to hold them to the same standards of political neutrality that characterize the media of the established democracies in Europe and North America. A Yangonbased media trainer uses a football metaphor to explain: Politics in Myanmar is not like in the UK or the US. In the US there are two teams, the Republicans and the Democrats. They compete in the political field where there are rules structuring the game. But in Myanmar we have teams but no agreed rules of the game. First we must build the institutions that structure political competition. This means we must support the prodemocracy movement. Now is not the time for me- dia neutrality. The political system is not neutral; it is stacked in favor of the regime.25 How much to accommodate President Thein Sein and other soft liners within his military-backed government was an issue that divided Myanmar’s media. Journalists were divided over to what extent they could trust the military’s commitment to liberalization. Echoing views expressed by many interviewees, one editor at The Voice supported the idea of a negotiated political settlement with the military, citing the example of South Africa’s transition in the 1990s: A lasting change can only be built slowly and will have to involve the military. I’m not pro-military, but they are a fact of life. A permanent settlement requires a compromise on all sides. Nelson Mandela understood this well. He promoted reconciliation rather than retribution and South Africa today is a consolidated democracy. The opposition in Myanmar must learn that politics is about compromise. When the opposition media aggressively attack the government, it makes the military insecure.26 A member of the IPC agreed, arguing that excessive media criticism of the military undermined the likely success of the liberalization process: It is hard for journalists to imagine the military as vulnerable because for decades the media have been the dictatorship’s victims. But in starting the liberalization process, the military are a bit like a mole coming out of his hole for the first time. If he feels safe, he will come out a little further. But if he gets hit on the head, he will run back inside. The military feel like the media are hitting them on the head.27 Others in the media disagreed, believing that liberalization was aimed at strengthening the military’s hold on power rather than a genuine transition to democracy. A journalist at the formerly exiled satellite broadcaster the Democratic Voice of Burma summed up the views of many of his colleagues: The military are undertaking reforms to protect themselves. If you are in any doubt, look at how they have guaranteed themselves 25 percent of seats in parliament. This gives them a controlling stake in who is president after 2015.28 The military won’t give us 23 In 1988 demands for an end to the military dictatorship in Myanmar spilled out from university campuses onto the streets, led by a group known as the ‘88 Generation Students’ Group. The movement was brutally suppressed and those who were caught were sentenced to decades in prison. Some of those who escaped overseas went on to work in the media in exile. 24 Author’s interview with Interim Press Council (IPC) member, December 2014. 25 Author’s interview with Yangon-based media trainer, September 2015. 26 Author’s interview with The Voice editor, December 2014. 27 Author’s interview with IPC member, September 2015. 28 The president of Myanmar is nominated by parliamentarians, not directly elected by the public. Three committees, known collectively as the Presidential Electoral College, are formed from among upper and lower house parliamentarians. One of the three committees is made up entirely of military-appointed lawmakers. Each committee nominates one candidate for the presidency. Members of the Electoral College then vote for one of the three candidates to become president. The candidate with the most votes takes the presidency and the unsuccessful candidates become vice-presidents (Reuters, 2015). Politics and Governance, 2017, Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 41–58 48