International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Burmese Media in Transition 191 order get reproduced in the design and implementation of new institutions. Especially in countries where the media have been dependent on the state and behavioral norms have long been formalized and bureaucratized, reformers must help undo entrenched relationships and develop new ones. A significant challenge for many journalists is their inability to get information from both the public and lower-level government officials whose mind-sets, they say, remain stuck in the era of censorship and information control. Many are only willing to speak if their supervisors permit them to do so, and then preferably with state-run media, long considered allies. And then there is the audience and its expectations. Ye Naing Moe explains that, for many Burmese, “Journalism has to take sides. Which side? Their side. . . . I think because of our history. . . . The media were very political, anti-British, nationalistic . . . [and] when the politicians came out of the prisons they became editors” (personal communication, July 26, 2013). This desire for good-versus-evil reporting is a manifestation of “enemy imaging” or creating an “us versus them” to create unity; this is standard practice in authoritarian behavior, and in the role of media in the post-antiregime era, where there is a need for a new enemy (Rogerson, 1997). Several scholars argue that press freedom can have a negative impact if it is not matched with tolerance for disagreement and a willingness to curb hate speech, sexism, racism, or otherwise harmful speech (O’Neill, 1998; Voltmer, 2013). Unfortunately, the abolition of censorship often results in racists and nationalist extremists demanding freedom of expression to spread their hateful views (Voltmer, 2013). The proliferation of hate speech against the Muslim Rohingya in both social media and mainstream media is an example of this kind of enemy imaging. Path Dependency and Resistance Discussions of path dependency tend to focus on the state and its officers and miss authoritarianism’s inherent resistance, perhaps because it is often hidden or subtle enough to be easily missed. Just as authoritarian patterns reemerge during transition periods, so, too, do patterns of resistance. The push for change in Burma began well before 2010, as writers and journalists have resisted censorship and tried to widen their scope for expression since the start of military rule. Many local media, especially ethnic media, consider their work to include educating local communities about major issues and challenging the culture of silence so people will speak out on their own behalf. “We have to teach sometimes, we have to organize,” Tanintharyi Weekly editor Myo Aung explains (personal communication, July 18, 2013). Burma News International secretary Khin Maung Shwe reiterated: “We have to build up the trust between civil society and media. In Burmese culture, mostly the people are afraid of the media . . . they don’t want to speak out” (personal communication, July 21, 2013). Myo Aung emphasizes to local people, “You have the right to [speak] . . . the country has already changed. . . . If you are right, the police cannot punish you.” Media are clearly agents of change here, working to develop relationships, promote participants’ agency, and transform the culture of fear, as Rodriguez (2001, 2011) has so carefully documented in other contexts. In 2012, when both the chief minister of the Tanintharyi region and local police asked the staff of the online Dawei Watch and its sister print weekly, Tanintharyi Weekly, not to cover controversial issues, the editors declined the request. Editor Thu Rein Hlaing told them, “This is not your right to tell us not to write this story. We got this information, so let me know if this is true or not” (personal communication,