Detailed Instructions: Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.
See one example below:
Problem: Our 'impartial' broadcasters have become mouthpieces of the elite. When people say they have no politics, it means that their politics aligns with the status quo . None of us are unbiased , none removed from the question of power . We are social creatures who absorb the outlook and opinions of those with whom we associate, and unconciously echo them . Objectivity is impossible . The illusion of neutrality is one of the reasons for the rotten state of journalism, as those who might have been expected to hold power to account drift thoughtlessly into its arms . But until I came across the scandal currently erupting in Canada, I hadn't understood just how quickly standards are falling . In 2013 reporters at CBC, Canada's equivalent of the BBC, broke a major story . They discovered that RBC - Royal Bank of Canada - had done something cruel and unusual even by banking standards . It was obliging junior staff to train a group of temporary foreign workers , who would then be given the staff's jobs . Just after the first report was aired, according to the website Canadaland, something odd happened : journalists preparing to expand on the investigation were summoned to a conference call with Amanda Lang, CBC's senior business correspondent and a star presenter . The reporters she spoke to say she repeatedly attempted to scuttle the story, dismissing it as trivial and dull . They were astonished . But not half as astonished as when they discovered the following, unpublished facts . First ,  that Lang had spoken at a series of events run or sponsored by RBC  - for which she appears, on one occasion, to have been paid around 15,000 Canadian dollars . Second , that she was booked to speak at an event sponsored by the outsourcing company the bank had hired to implement the cruel practice exposed by her colleagues . Third , that her partner is a board member at RBC . Lang then interviewed the bank's chief executive on her own show . When he dismissed the story as unfair and misleading , she did not challenge him . That evening she uncritically repeated his talking points on CBC's main current affairs programme . Her interests, again, were not revealed . Then she wrote a comment article for the Globe and Mail newspaper suggesting that her colleagues' story arose from an outdated suspicion of business, was dangerous to Canada's interests, and was nothing but "a sideshow" . Here's what she said about the bank's employment practices:"It's called capitalism, and it isn't a dirty word." Canadaland, which exposed Lang's conflicts last week, found that other journalists at the broadcaster were furious, but too frightened to speak on the record . But after CBC tried to dismiss the scandal as "half-truths based on anonymous sources" , Kathy Tomlinson, the reporter who had broken the story about the bank, bravely spoke publicly to the website . The following morning, staff in her office arrived to find this message spelt out in magnets on their fridge:"Jesse Brown snitches get stitches" . Jesse Brown is Canadaland's founder . CBC refused to answer my questions , and I have not had a response from Lang . It amazes me that she remains employed by CBC , which has so far done nothing but bluster and berate its critics . This is grotesque . But it's symptomatic of a much wider problem in journalism : those who are supposed to scrutinise the financial and political elite are embedded within it . Many belong to a service-sector aristocracy, wedded metaphorically (sometimes literally) to finance . Often unwittingly, they amplify the voices of the elite, while muffling those raised against it . A study by academics at the Cardiff School of Journalism examined the BBC Today programme's reporting of the bank bailouts in 2008 . It discovered that the contributors it chose were "almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices . Civil society voices or commentators who questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage." The financiers who had caused the crisis were asked to interpret it . The same goes for discussions about the deficit and the perceived need for austerity . The debate has been dominated by political and economic elites , while alternative voices - arguing that the crisis has been exaggerated, or that instead of cuts, the government should respond with Keynesian spending programmes or taxes on financial transactions, wealth or land- have scarcely been heard . Those priorities have changed your life : the BBC helped to shape the political consensus under which so many are now suffering . The BBC's business reporting breaks its editorial guidelines every day by failing to provide alternative viewpoints . Every weekday morning, the Today programme grovels to business leaders for 10 minutes . It might occasionally challenge them on the value or viability of their companies, but hardly ever on their ethics . Corporate critics are shut out of its business coverage - and almost all the rest . On BBC News at Six, the Cardiff researchers found, business representatives outnumbered trade union representatives by 19 to one . "The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world," the study said . This, remember, is where people turn when they don't trust the corporate press . While the way in which the media handle the stories that are covered is bad enough , the absence of coverage is even worse . If an issue does not divide the main political parties , it vanishes from view , though the parties now disagree on hardly anything . Another study reveals a near total collapse of environmental coverage on ITV and BBC news: it declined from 2.5% (ITV) and 1.6% (BBC) of total airtime in 2007 to, respectively, 0.2% and 0.3% in 2014 . There were as many news stories on these outlets about Madeleine McCann in 2014 - seven years after her disappearance - as there were about all environmental issues put together . Those entrusted to challenge power are the loyalists of power . They rage against social media and people such as Russell Brand, without seeing that the popularity of alternatives is a response to their own failures: their failure to expose the claims of the haut monde, their failure to enlist a diversity of opinion, their failure to permit the audience to see that another world is possible . If even the public sector broadcasters parrot the talking points of the elite , what hope is there for informed democratic choice? o Twitter: @georgemonbiot . A fully referenced version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com .
Solution: The illusion of neutrality is one of the reasons for the rotten state of journalism, as those who might have been expected to hold power to account drift thoughtlessly into its arms We are social creatures who absorb the outlook and opinions of those with whom we associate, and unconciously echo them
Explanation: The text span selected for thesis is meaningful and correct. Pay attention that there can be more than one correct thesis for each article. Some meaningful subsets of this thesis also can be accepted as a thesis, like : "none of us are unbiased"

Problem: If je ne suis pas Charlie, am I a bad person? Nuance gets lost in groupthink. In the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris last week, many people in France and elsewhere have declared, Je suis Charlie ("I am Charlie") after heavily armed gunmen broke into the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French magazine, and killed eight staff members, two police officers, a building maintenance worker and wounded several others . On Sunday, hundreds of thousands of people including a number of world leaders such as Angela Merkel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and David Cameron gathered in Paris for a unity rally, to stand in mourning, in defiance . There were cries of Je suis Charlie, Je suis Ahmed(I am Ahmed, the Muslim police officer who lost his life in the attack), Je suis juif(I am a Jew) . These declarations were a display of solidarity with those who lost their lives and those who survived . They allowed people to try and place themselves in the lives of others by using the power of language . We have seen this kind of remembrance before in the face of tragedy : I am Troy Davis ; I am Mike Brown ; I am Eric Garner ; I am Renisha McBride . But we are none of these people . We can and do empathize with the plights of the dead, the survivors and their loved ones . We can and do empathize with how fragile we all are, and with how we cannot be ruled by terror, but why the rhetorical urge to take the place of the fallen? What does it bring them? I, too, have ached since hearing the news of what happened in Paris but je ne suis pas Charlie et je ne suis pas Ahmed et je ne suis pas juif . There are times when silence equals consent, but is the loss of someone else's life really such an instance? Is it reasonable to assume that if je ne suis pas Charlie, I tacitly endorse terrorism? I believe in the freedom of expression, unequivocally - though , as I have written before , I wish more people would understand that freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence . I find some of the work of Charlie Hebdo distasteful , because there is a preponderance of bigotry of all kinds in many of their cartoons' sentiments . Still ,  my distaste should not dictate the work the magazine produces or anything else . The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo - and writers and artists everywhere - should be able to express themselves and challenge authority without being murdered . Murder is not an acceptable consequence for anything . Yet it is also an exercise of freedom of expression to express offense at the way satire like Charlie Hebdo's characterizes something you hold dear - like your faith, your personhood, your gender, your sexuality, your race or ethnicity . Demands for solidarity can quickly turn into demands for groupthink , making it difficult to express nuance . It puts the terms of our understanding of the situation in black and white - you are either with us or against us - instead of allowing people to mourn and be angry while also being sympathetic to complexities that are being overlooked . It has been disheartening to see calls for the Muslim community to denounce terrorism . It has been disheartening to see journalists highlighting the stories of "good" Muslims , as if goodness is the exception to the rule of an entire people . We will continue to see discussions of satire, the freedom of expression and its limits . We will see speculations as to how such a tragedy can be avoided because it is easier to speculate than it is to accept that we cannot prevent terrorism . We cannot sway extremists with rational thought or with our ideas of right and wrong . Life moves quickly but , sometimes, consideration does not . And yet ,  we insist that people provide an immediate response, or immediate agreement, a universal, immediate me-too  - as though we don't want people to pause at all, to consider what they are weighing in on . We don't want to complicate our sorrow or outrage when it is easier to experience these emotions in their simplest, purest states . The older(and hopefully wiser) I get, the more I want to pause . I want to take the time to think through how I feel and why I feel . I don't want to feign expertise on matters I know nothing about for the purpose of offering someone else my immediate reaction for their consumption . The demand for response from all of us through the means available to us, most often our social networks, rises in part because we can feel so impotent in our day-to-day lives . We are people with jobs and families and our quotidian concerns . It is easy to feel impotent in the face of terrorism in Paris or hundreds of girls being kidnapped in Nigeria or a bombing at an NAACP building in Colorado or an unarmed black man being killed by a police officer . Within our social networks, we can feel less alone . We can feel less impotent . We can make these gestures of solidarity . Je suis Charlie . We can change our avatars . We can share our anger, our fear, or devastation without having to face that we may not be able to do much more . But we still feel impotent and we still feel inadequate . When we see people not participating in our expressions of solidarity-- not showing their awareness of their own impotence-- we see something we can possibly change . That is why we demand allegiance .
Solution:
These declarations were a display of solidarity with those who lost their lives and those who survived In the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris last week, many people in France and elsewhere have declared, Je suis Charlie