International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Burmese Media in Transition 195 Many of these companies exemplify the worrying global trend of conglomeration, wherein powerful business interests or families control both media and nonmedia holdings, often using their media to promote their other interests and creating significant conflicts of interest generally invisible to consumers and audiences. This is a worldwide phenomenon, true for countries in transition as well as wealthy nations with ostensibly free media systems. Examples include U.S. conglomerates with connections to arms manufacturing, as well as media and retired military officials who become media “analysts” with undisclosed ties to defense contractors and weapons manufacturers benefiting financially from war (Fang, 2014). This severely limits people’s understanding of what is being done in their names and why. In Myanmar, many conglomerates already own media. Shwe Than Lwin Company, in addition to its flagship SkyNet, also has interests in mining, construction, agriculture, cigarettes, soft drinks, and beer. The huge conglomerate Serge Pun & Associates, formerly a major shareholder of Mizzima, includes some 40 business enterprises with wide-ranging interests in financial services, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, the automotive industry, and health care. Tay Za’s Htoo Group is one of the country’s biggest conglomerates, with interests in telecommunications as well as aviation, hotels, banking, heavy machinery, agriculture, timber, gems, and lucrative import licenses. Another key concern in any transition is balancing commercial interests with media’s publicservice responsibility. For many countries in Eastern Europe, rapid changes led to a hypercommercialized environment that does not meet people’s information needs and lacks a commitment to public-service media. Chalaby (1998) finds two dimensions of the public sphere were particularly important in the East European countries in transition: the notion of empowerment and the development of a rational discourse, the need for which is “acute” during a period of change (p. 74). Commercial media practices can be detrimental to both through “depoliticization, emotionalism and sensationalism within the popular press and the information gap the market creates between social classes” (Chalaby, 1998, p. 81). Although commercial media target those niche markets and interest groups with expendable income, they have little incentive to present the views or concerns of impoverished minorities. Public-service media have such a mandate. This is especially important, because it is becoming increasingly difficult to operate in Myanmar’s national media market without a big business partner. Senior editor and MPC member U Thiha Saw described his experience running the first independent English language daily in the country in 50 years, Myanmar Freedom. The initial plan was to secure enough funding for at least a year, and after that reach a point of sustainability. “But the landscape changed a lot in the first year; many big companies have come in,” he explained. The environment became “much more complicated and much more like a big money game,” so he suspended the publication to talk with potential investors (personal communication, July 6, 2014). When we spoke, Myanmar Freedom was about to become part of Myanmar Consolidated Media Company, owned by U Thein Htun, with interests in soft drinks and banking, and publisher of the Myanmar Times Burmese and English weeklies. “It’s a big deal for us,” U Thiha Saw told me, “but for this rich guy, it’s a . . . nothing. . . . So it’s sort of like a takeover” (personal communication July 6, 2014). Some consider economics and ownership the key issues to address in order to diversity and democratize media. They argue that the different cases of regime change during the last 30 years have one thing in common: They all experienced “(re) integration into the world market and, concomitantly,