When I graduated with my bachelor's degree in 1990, I carried with me the lessons of my undergraduate professors concerning the importance of fair and balanced journalism; giving readers both sides of a story so the coverage could assist them in making up their own minds about issues of personal importance. After spending more than 20 years as a journalist and newspaper editor, I left the profession as corporate greed began to invade, including ownership monopolies that have grown even stronger during the 13 years since I left the journalism field. However, what I have found more surprising since then is rapid growth in the area of biased media coverage, whether it is promoting the interests of corporate ownership of the outlets with little or no media interest or background, or as a way of siding with one influencing organization or political party who is pushing a one-sided or one issue agenda. There are varied reasons this occurs, and this issue is perpetuated by the decline or closure of smaller news outlets who cover local happenings, which, in the past, has given recent journalism school graduates a place to start their career and develop their skills, both in writing and a personal code of ethics to guide their professional life. The goal of this dissertation is to study how an increasing number of news reporters have veered off track to no longer offer both sides of stories, and to outline how financial decisions guide ethics in the field of journalism, with a preference toward choosing sides over providing information. The mission is to find the disconnect between the academic messages of ethics and fairness, assumed to be taught in journalism schools across the country, and the biased coverage that comes out the other side when graduates become journalists and begin writing stories assumed to present facts. As the ownership of American media outlets -- radio and television stations and print products -- have transitioned to being more concentrated and corporately-owned, agendas, both political and personal, have become key factors for coverage that is out of balance. After having worked in that world, and literally running for years career-wise away from the corporate giant GateHouse Media, now called Gannett, I learned firsthand how corporate greed and narrowed agendas for coverage can damage not only the community of consumers meant as the audience, but also the journalists who try to maintain their personal and professional integrity while still staying employed. Many of the people influenced by the media outlets they choose to gather news from are likely not aware of the shift in balance, or the transactional nature of the profession. Those who have either left or who have been forced from a career in reporting and editing after facing ethical decisions are aware of the changes and know the damage it is causing. They are also aware of how it narrows options for consumers of the biased stories and how it causes side-choosing, as well as possible discourse. As Rob Lowe's character in the television show West Wing said, "Neuroscientists have found that when people who describe themselves as politically committed listen to political statements, they respond only with the emotional side of their brain -- the area of the cortex where reasoning occurs stays quiet" (Noah, 2006). [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]