Daniel Hallin, the coauthor of Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics, in response to a question on the generalizability of themodels identified in the book, maintains they are not intended to be universal.Rather, they are abstracted from specific contexts in various European andAmerican countries. For him, the key to comparative study is contextualization.He advises comparative ommunication researchers to treat the concepts in the book as reference points and to formulate rameworks based on the context they are studying. On the choice between small-N and large-N studies in comparative studies, Hallin observes that the state of comparative communication research has not reached the point where fruitful statistical studies can be done. On the contrary, the small-N case study approach can generate the deep understanding of media systems that the field badly needs. When asked how the Chinese media system may fit the models he has identified in his book, Hallin argues that China should be conceptualized on its own because of its special logic. However, he argues that the comparative dimensions he used in his analysis—the structure of media markets, the role of the State, the forms of “political parallelism” and journalistic professionalism—may have their equivalents in China and elsewhere, and they should be analytically relevant. To Hallin, the days are over when anyone could study a single national media system in isolation; comparative communication research has come of age in this globalizing world