Despite the rising importance of comparative research in this age of global communication, the issue of “comparability” has remained a live topic of discussion (Mancini & Hallin, 2012). To put theories and concepts to robust testing, researchers are urged to go “out of [one’s own familiar] bounds” (Blumler, McLeod, & Rosengren, 1992, p. 8). Comparisons must be made not only among the different, but also among the similar. As Beniger (1992) has argued, comparing “apples and oranges” is key to advancing theoretical dialogue. The challenge is how to ensure that apples and oranges are comparable. To avoid mistakes, researchers are requested to be “context sensitive,” e.g., to pay close attention to the adequacy of the measurement instruments, functional equivalence of the objects being compared, and the categories used. Yet is proper execution all there is to establish comparability?