"This wide range of contemporary mass media research illustrates how Central Asia press outlets remain tightly controlled and manipulated, first under the czars, then under the Soviets, and now under authoritarian regimes. Over the past two decades, the press systems have not achieved even minimal democratization and independence by international standards. Perhaps the Internet and other technologies will have a better chance of circumventing censors and the economic obstacles that deny the great mass of Central Asians the ability to participate in a useful dialog leading to more transparent and participatory governance. Several overarching observations emerge from this synthesized examination of recent research. The five separate press systems that replaced the single Soviet system share many commonalities, although significant differences also exist. These studies indicate varying but not decisive degrees of external influences from multi-governmental entities, media-building foundations, and promoters of civil society; such influences on Central Asian media development originate with mostly Western-based journalism and mass media trainers. Another observation concerns regimes’ use and abuse of laws to control information about public affairs and public issues. That pattern evident from several studies reflects a disconnect between constitutional and statutory guarantees of press freedom on one side and actual threats to those guarantees on the other side due to libel and “honor and dignity” suits, criminal prosecutions, and tightening regulation of the Internet. Examined collectively, these studies suggest the following obstacles to democratic and independent media development in Central Asia: strict governmental and extra-governmental restraints on the press, regardless of the type of medium—print, broadcast, or Internet; inadequate professional training, leadership, resources, financial incentives, and ethical standards for journalists and prospective journalists; limitations on the ability of domestic and international press and human rights defenders to compel changes in policies and laws; insufficient market resources to create and sustain independent news organizations; and a resulting lack of credibility and public trust in the press." (Summary and conclusions, page 142)