"The problem is that tying a journalist's income to his organization's financial performance, in effect, changes the journalist's allegiance" (pg. 59). This is the main reason why the triangular balance among the citizens, journalists and advertisers is difficult to manage. It seems quite simple why the balance is more difficult to maintain in our age, as Kovach and Rosenstiel point out, "owners determine newsroom budgets." News agencies have become subordinate entities in larger corporate schemes, i.e., Disney, AOL, instead of private organizations loyal to the citizenry. In other words, if the owner wants profits first then more allegiance will be shifted to advertisers-If the owner wants value and news first then more allegiance will be shifted to the public.
             The Internet has made immediacy a primacy. This is especially evident in television news where to be the first means to be the best. Unfortunately, being the first to broadcast something has no bearing on the substance of the broadcast. It is a ratings driven desire, a profit motive.
             Do you think solid, balanced and fair reporting matters enough to the populace that they will continue to support it financially? Is the premise of this question accurate? Don't the authors imply that previously when newspapers were owned by individuals or by individual families that these people were either independently wealthy or did not have profit margin as their first goal? If this was the case then it could be said that acted like underwriters to their news outlet. Perhaps the populace never really supported it financially in terms of huge profits but instead only partially subsidized the new organizations efforts.
             2. The forum-leader role generates more activity then the gatekeeper role if we are to believe the authors. The forum-leader role comes out of the author's definition of truth as a conversation. The authors ...