Who's the watchee of the Watchdogs?

  "Comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable."-Finley Peter Dunne
         
              A no brainier in journalism, is it not? Within the first week of journalism, of any journalism class, the students will always be introduced to the former concept. Those in power need to be watched like a hawk and those under them must be protected from them. Lord knows we can't believe everything that comes out of Trumps mouth. However, this invoked me to ponder further. How does one determine who to watch? Who is befitting this watchdog treatment?
         
            If you took the time to fully ponder the enormity of this concept could you not say that the answer is but a subjective one. One may say we have to watch religious institutions, another government, maybe non profit organizations, and health agencies. Who is most befitting of the watchdog treatment? I believe that to answer this question you must first gain a deeper meaning of the concept of power. Could you not say that it is the Journalist that actually hold some of the greatest influence? If a single journalist has the power to bring down a king could you not say the journalist holds the higher power? To gain proper comprehension, I must first bring forth yet another discussion.                                   
         
         Nowadays, people aren't really reading for what they need to hear, but rather what they want to hear. This means that if the majority of the public wants to hear about how great Trump is than the news media will watch for any of Trumps success's and become watchdog critiques to all his opposition. Yes, they are technically watchdogs, but it is a contorted version of the critical role. If the majority of the population suddenly became liberal, if it means having more viewers, than don't be surprised if the media suddenly becomes incredibly liberal friendly. The idea of "watchdogs" has practically become a subject to majority rule. If the ones we rely on to be watchdogs are biased themselves than what can be done."To comprehend the solution to this dilemma I had to make yet another connection.
           
            The ten yardsticks of journalism. "Room for dissent" and "public forum". Even "analyze". In the end the answer lies not only with the journalists themselves but the audience at whole. I believe regardless of how we wish it was so, it is not only journalist who must verify their information but us who must verify our journalists. It is true that everyone can be a journalist today, and while some may view this a mere complication, in reality, though being hard waters to navigate, it also gives more perspective. A lot of the time the bias of the media is merely a reflection of the bias within us- the public. Though my message may come off as three different points spider webbing beyond control, that itself is the message I'm trying to convey. In the end, what I've concluded is that all the factions of journalism are interconnected. In answer of my original question who is the watchdog and who must be watched? Who really has the most power? Is it the government, journalists themselves, or the very root- the public? Simple, it's all of the above. We must all be watchdogs to both ourselves and each other. That is the only way to truly present a proper balance.