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 But not half as astonished as when they discovered the following, unpublished facts .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: Power without purpose: the tragic rule of David Cameron. When the history of David Cameron's time as prime minister is written , no doctrine will be named after him . The government has been ideological, but not in a way that bears an intellectual imprint of the Conservative leader . There have been upheavals in schools, the health service and the benefits system , but those revolutions belong to Michael Gove, Andrew Lansley and Iain Duncan Smith . Cameron gave permission , he never pioneered . Cameron has also said he abhors "isms" and wouldn't want posterity to anoint him with one . Friends say this makes him a practical conservative of the old school , guided by ancient and uncodified British instincts of decency . His enemies think that is a posh way of saying he lacks principle . With no pattern of belief associated with his name, Cameron's legacy will be a collection of tactical manoeuvres, with as many prominent surrenders as victories . The true spirit of "Cameronism" in education, for example, is better conveyed in the removal in 2014 of Gove to placate the teaching profession than in his appointment to shake up the department in the first place . But in no field is the Tory leader's trademark better defined than in his approach to Europe . If any political manoeuvre deserves to be named after the Conservative leader , it is the habit of trying to sate the appetites of hardline Eurosceptics with morsels that would always leave them hungry . It might be called the "Cameron concession" . Thus has he fed the Eurosceptic pack enough to keep it snapping at his heels and frustrated it enough that his voice was drowned by angry barking . Perhaps the saddest aspect of this spectacle is that it saw a potentially sound policy trampled in the melee . The outline of Cameron's position is that Britain should stay in the EU but under changed terms . They will change anyway because the priority for most other member states is bolstering the single currency . This involves the integration of a euro-core with serious implications for Britain's status one way or another . So the principle of pro- active renegotiation, ratified by referendum, is sound . But Cameron spoiled a plausible position with cowardice : he set his renegotiation up as an empty vessel into which hardliners poured Ukip-ish fantasies of ending immigration . He bought the argument that says the terms on offer from Brussels get better the closer Britain gets to the exit , although that logic is commonly advanced by people who want the negotiations to fail . The deadline for his referendum, the end of 2017, was plucked from thin air without regard for what was diplomatically feasible or economically wise . But the chief reason Cameron's EU policy hasn't worked for him is that voters also consider motive when awarding merit . Those who want a referendum in order to leave the EU mistrust the prime minister because he wants a different outcome ; and pro-Europeans don't trust Cameron to defend Britain's interests in Europe because the whole policy came about as a sop to the sceptics . That doesn't leave many people who think the Tories have the right policy for the right reason . Europe exemplifies the problem , but it runs deeper . Cameron's team are sure they are running on an admirable record: economic growth, rising employment, lower crime, a reduced deficit and reformed welfare . These are things, like the EU referendum, that should make the Tories popular . By the same calculation, Labour, lacking those credentials, should be out of the running . Yet the campaign has started and Ed Miliband is still ahead . Downing Street clings to the now familiar explanation that voters haven't properly engaged with the choice, and that the Tory surge will come at the eleventh hour when the reality of a possible Miliband regime penetrates the national consciousness . But what if Cameron has hit the limit of credit available for five years in charge because even the good bits don't connect in people's minds with decent motives? That is what Labour strategists are banking on . Miliband's personal ratings are bleak, except on measures of decency and empathy . So those are the leadership qualities his campaign aims to project . The contrast they want to draw is between Cameron's ethical plasticity and a challenger who sticks to his beliefs . Miliband will be cast as a man guided by what David Axelrod, Barack Obama's former aide now advising Labour, calls"a north star" - a compass point that tells voters a leader is propelled by something more noble than the salvation of his own skin . Waverers who don't warm to Miliband(and who aren't irredeemably riddled with anti-Westminster rage) might still be persuaded that he is in politics for the right reason . The opposite is true of Cameron . Even those in his own party who like the direction of policy cannot sincerely claim that their leader is driven by much beyond a sense of entitlement to the job . That was less of an impediment in the past . For much of the 20th century, Britain was ruled by Conservatives who thought of political theory as something suspect or vulgar, a folly for continentals and socialists, and no substitute for the innate good sense drilled into English boys at the best schools . The Thatcher revolution disrupted the patrician culture in the Conservative party, but not the underlying belief that Tory rule is a default setting for British politics; the norm to which the country tends . That assumption, more than economic growth, deficit reduction, an EU referendum or any other part of the prospectus, is what makes Cameron think he can stay on after May . It is the confidence that he is an archetypal prime minister and the only credible candidate for the job . Perhaps he will be proved right . He will have money and much of the press to amplify that view . But even loyal Conservatives can't entirely ignore the intellectual void at the centre . The right has decried it as often as the left . The past five years have posed huge challenges for Britain regarding the economy, our place in Europe, England's relations with Scotland, the decline of trust in institutions . But of which encounter with a great problem can it be said the prime minister truly rose to the occasion? Cameron doesn't have big answers , he shrinks questions . And that is how history will remember him, whatever happens in May . He successfully pursued power and spent it without purpose .
Solution:
the history of David Cameron's time as prime minister is written The government has been ideological, but not in a way that bears an intellectual imprint of the Conservative leader