It is a different thing to rank Nepal's media 'conservative' or lacking in press freedom, and a completely different thing as to how many media outlets Nepal has. You can have quite a few that could outnumber media outlets in other countries, yet whether the facts reach the people will still remain questionable. If we go back and look at America's media policy during the Vietnam war (or not to go too far, American media during the Iraq war), would you consider it 'press freedom' in its truest sense?? While Nepal's media has a trend of its own (probably initiated and curbed by the move taken by the government/international forces). To cite a minor example, Maoists were first referred to by the press as 'terrorists' and 'insurgents', later were less negatively levelled as 'rebels', 'guerrillas' and 'activists' implying that they were fighting for a cause, and after 2001, as 'terrorists'. How and when is the press 'free' when it swings in the direction the situation demands... Nepal's recent MDG report claims an increase in the percentage of people who have access to safe drinking water from 61 percent in 1996 to 72 percent in 2001.But I can be skeptical that the 'increase in installation of water pipelines in houses doesn't ensure the access to safe drinking water'. I might be completely wrong, but how many of the media houses we have in Nepal are news-based (do the 30 FM radios make any difference in the above mentioned press freedom issue if all they impart to the public is entertainment and some news borrowed from another source?). And I completely believe that the research could be true given the high level of political instability in Nepal and the interest (or fear- could also be that of the Maoists) of the media outlets to report what the situation demands and not the facts. Ashu ji, your explanation above only reminds me of conspiracy theory (at its worst-- and if it works!).