Methodology Whether we consider extreme speech or disinformation components, or opponents of a free and plural media landscape, this is initially irrelevant for the research question: how and why have differing forms of harmful disinformation emerged in Malaysia, Myanmar, and Thailand. The analysis of components or opponents of media freedom, most notably in under-researched regions, requires consideration of culture-specific characteristics without the assumption of an exceptional uniqueness or otherness of their context. Therefore, contextualization is used to detect and explain the underlying factors which have impacted the media environments. Various research often (only) uses media freedom rankings published by organizations such as Freedom House (FH) and Reporters Without Borders (RWB), which, as Roudakova notes, are not “particularly insightful” when analysing impacts on specific media freedom or media control mechanisms (Roudakova, 2012, p. 262). Hence, research relying on those rankings is exposed to a strong Western bias, a lack of transparency, and unclearly defined concepts because these rankings lack an academic methodology to measure and compare media freedom. The strong Western bias in these rankings is derived from the structure, measurement instruments, and financial dependencies of these organizations (Brooten, 2013; Giannone & de Frutos, 2016; McCurdy, Power, & Godfrey, 2011; Sapiezynska & Lagos, 2016). Academic engagement with standardized assessments of media freedom such as FH and RWB rankings is ambivalent at best. For the use of quantitative data in the evaluation of media freedom, Goldstein (1986, p. 620) states, in reference to the FH methodology: “Even more disturbing than the deficiencies of these data resources is the fact that social scientists have treated them as though they are methodologically sound quantitative data.” He concludes that “[n]o quantitative calculation can really measure the most significant impact of human rights abuses [alone]”. Such data must always be interpreted within their historical and political contexts in combination with good qualitative data (Goldstein, 1986, p. 624; Gurevitch & Blumler, 1990). Therefore, this comparison of threats to media freedom, particularly harmful disinformation, is based on qualitative in-depth case studies. Case study analysis has comparative merit because inductive methods can identify the complexity of political communication control and their causal mechanisms (George & Bennet, 2005; Chakravartty & Roy, 2013). The basis for comparing the connotative contexts is data from field research trips7  to Malaysia, Myanmar, and Thailand in 2017, including 32 in-depth expert interviews with local and exile journalists, media owners, NGO workers, artists, members of journalists’ associations and the press council, civil society organization workers, researchers, and government personnel. The expert interviews were conducted by the author in Malaysia, Myanmar, and Thailand between February 13 and April 20 in 2017. Experts were not selected randomly; rather different media sectors and different political and “ideological” perspectives were considered by a selection                                                                                                                         7 This field research trip was financially supported with a travel grant by the FAZIT foundation. Winter 2019 | 72