Conclusion: "The three months of monitoring revealed that monitored state-controlled media in Burma do not follow any professional journalistic standards, but only serve as a mouthpiece of the ruling powers. Plain bias in favor of state officials and incumbents and no reflection of opposing or critical views in state-controlled media was observed during the entire three-month monitoring period. In the period preceding the elections, the main news programs of the state-controlled TV channels were showing only the top state officials and completely ignored any other stakeholders. They offered an exceptionally limited range of diversity of political actors, with any other political subjects having virtually no access to the country?s most important sources of information. It is also of concern that these disturbing trends in the way the Burmese state-controlled media cover political entities are not result of short-term anomalies, but genuine trends in the Burmese media. These negative trends are to some extent meliorated by the exile media which do offer a diverse range of views, with the main opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party National League for Democracy getting the most significant coverage. However, the potential geographical coverage of the exile media, and thus their accessibility to Burmese population is much lower than that of the state-controlled media in Burma. Overall, election contestants were allowed only very restricted access to the media and were prevented from fully enjoying their right of freedom of expression. The complete lack by the media in Burma of any independent and objective reporting limited the voters? access to a broad range of information which would enable them to make an informed choice at the ballot box."