196 Lisa Brooten International Journal of Communication 10(2016) increasing marketization of the economies themselves” (Sparks, 2010, p. 12). Price (2009) questions whether the efforts of media reformers in individual countries during the decade of post-Soviet transition in Central and Eastern Europe were as influential or significant as pressures by foreign investors for legal frameworks supporting their investments. Sparks (2010) notes that, despite vast differences between China and South Africa, in both, “market entry has often involved very close links between media owners and politicians, particularly in broadcasting” (p. 13). This is an issue to remain vigilant about, since the smaller, independent media in Myanmar are already having a hard time staying afloat. Moving Forward, Widening the Lens It is useful to conceptualize media as agents of stability, restraint, change, or all three. As agents of stability for the militarized status quo, Burmese media engage in several behaviors, such as selfcensorship, or enemy-imaging, promoting hate speech that justifies continued military involvement. As agents of restraint, media call for transparency and hold government accountable. As agents of change, Myanmar media push the envelope in various ways, raising normally off-limits topics, urging people to speak out and officials to share information, and at times openly protesting problematic laws and policies. Yet some of the biggest challenges to diverse and accessible media in Myanmar are rapid commercialization, concentration of ownership, and the conflicts of interest that arise when media belong to large, multisector business conglomerates with ties to the military and elites. Such relationships constrain media agency and diversity, both geographic and ethnic, despite government promises for diverse and independent media. The debates around media development reveal the different visions of media held by various stakeholders. Journalists are pushing for freedom to report freely in an environment of security and transparency. The government, through the Ministry of Information, envisions itself as a benign paternal figure, enlisting UNESCO and other foreign experts in the process of transforming its state-run media into public-service media, and guiding journalists in a process of disciplined democracy. And the military remains wary of media freedom, working to curtail content as it sees fit to protect national security. Although analyzing the behaviors of the state is important, a sole focus on the actions of the state and its officers severely limits our understanding of the new forms that resistance takes as countries open up. Scholars and policy makers must avoid perspectives that marginalize (or unnecessarily glorify, for that matter) nongovernmental sectors, especially civil society organizations and other grassroots groups, including media, as agents of change. Widening our lens to identify the patterns of resistance that emerge in the transition period can help pinpoint opportunities to nurture and protect grassroots initiatives and support democratic change. This means seeking the opinions of more than the normal cadre of leaders and politicians in the parliament, the Ministry of Information, and even the Myanmar Press Council, and moving outside the Yangon/Mandalay bubble to understand the country’s complex media landscape. We have also seen from other countries that media should be understood as a component of a larger civil society sector, and that to preserve and promote diversity, media must be conceptualized as public-service rather than solely commercial ventures.