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.

[Q]: North Korea: An 'act of war' over a movie? At his press conference on Friday, President Barack Obama said that Sony "made a mistake" by not releasing its film "The Interview" on schedule . He said:"We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States." The dictator in question is North Korea's Kim Jung-un . Sony acted following both a major hack of its computer files and, more ominously, a threat that any US showing of the comedy film that culminates in the assassination of Kim, could produce another 9/11 type attack . The threat was issued on December 16 by an outfit calling itself, the "Guardians of Peace" , which also claims to have been behind the hack attack on Sony . It promised a "Christmas gift" for the American people . Within 48 hours of the threat, and following pleas by companies owning most of the cinemas in the US, as well as by the shopping centres in which the cinemas are situated, Sony pulled the film , which is quite a coup for whoever orchestrated the assault on the company . The original hack cost Sony an estimated $170m while withdrawing the film will cost the company another $45m it cost to make plus whatever the film would have taken in at theatres and from home release . This is a big deal . It is worth noting that it is not 100 percent positive that Pyongyang is behind the Sony hack or the 9/11 warning . Yes, the FBI asserts (with its customary assurance) that North Korea is guilty on both counts but leading cyber security experts say (with equal certitude) that the evidence of North Korean responsibility is sketchy at best . As for the North Korean regime itself, it flatly denies any involvement while at the same time issuing threats against the US that are even more blood curdling than the one issued by the "Guardians of Peace" (who may or may not be the North Koreans themselves) . Whoever the culprits are, they did not inflict major damage on the US . Contrary to those who are screaming that by pulling the film, the US surrendered the concept of freedom of speech , it is not the US government that pulled the film . In fact ,  Obama said that if Sony had talked to him first, he would have told the company to show the film as planned . But Sony did not talk to Obama because its decision to withdraw the film had nothing to do with the US or its national interests but with the financial interests of the multinational corporation itself . Multinationals do not, for reasons implied in the very term multinational, act with an eye on any flag . These are businesses and profit, not patriotism, is their guide . It is, therefore, ridiculous to accuse the US of yielding to the threat of a foreign dictator . It didn't . Sony did and , from the point of view of its shareholders, it probably did the right thing . Losing $45m in production costs for "The Interview" is nothing compared to Sony's potential liability if some catastrophe occurred at a showing of the film in Los Angeles or Washington, DC . This is not to say that there are no foreign policy implications of this debacle . Sony's decision to make a comedy about the assassination of the North Korean head of state was a terrible idea that has only worsened the US' already terrible relations with this very unstable nuclear-armed nation . If reports that a State Department official read the script and approved of the assassination scenario are true , that is troubling . Driving an already unbalanced head of state off the deep end is clearly not something diplomats should sign off on . Of course ,  certain elements in the US government want to see an increase in tensions with North Korea, and maybe even an attempt at "regime change" . Although Obama was careful to say that North Korea's purported actions constituted "cyber vandalism" but "not an act of war" , Senator John McCain, who becomes chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee next month, said on Friday that it is indeed an act of war to which the US must respond . Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich agrees , as do eager warriors in both political parties, those who promoted war with Iraq and now oppose a nuclear deal with Iran . Those two countries are, of course, charter members of former President George W Bush's original "Axis of Evil" regimes that he and his allies wanted eliminated . The third member was North Korea .
[A]: At his press conference on Friday, President Barack Obama said that Sony "made a mistake" by not releasing its film "The Interview" on schedule


[Q]: Islamic terror and Obama White House: Josh Earnest summons ghost of Ron Ziegler. French Muslims trained by Al Qaeda and inspired by the Islamic Caliphate murder seventeen people in Paris . Their announced reason is revenge for the defamation of the Prophet Muhammad . Their battle cry is the Arabic declaration that 'Allah hu Akbar'(Allah is the greatest!) . In the aftermath, White House spokesman Josh Earnest briefs the media on how his boss, President Obama, sees the slaughter in Paris . His diagnosis: A deplorable case of "terrorism." Reporters notice a missing adjective . Has Earnest forgotten to mention something about the identity of the killers? No, not at all, Earnest says . He is simply trying to be accurate . He explains(and I paraphrase) that the Paris assassins were just folks who happened to commit mass murder against some journalists(every spokesman's fantasy-- I speak from personal experience) and then ,  stuck for an explanation, invoked Islam . The proof that this had nothing to do with the Religion of Peace is that it was "roundly condemned by (unnamed) Muslim spiritual leaders . Not since the hapless Ron Ziegler assured the press that his boss, Richard Nixon, was not a crook, has a White House spokesman been reduced to invoking the,"who-are-you-going- to- believe, me-or-your-lying-eyes," defense in quite such a pitiful way . The name "Josh Earnest" may not go down in history , but it is destined to become a "Jeopardy" answer : What presidential spokesman denied the existence of Islamic terrorism? Of course Earnest did this in a good cause-- keeping his job . And to be charitable, his boss probably has virtuous reasons for his see-no-evil approach , For one thing, he doesn't want to insult American Muslims , who are his supporters . For another, he may imagine that he is protecting them from Tea Party pogroms, an abiding, if entirely imaginary, liberal concern . It is likely that Obama also thinks that his discreet silence about who did what to whom in Paris is a boon the American fight for hearts and minds in the Middle East . If so , he is mistaken . Muslims from Nigeria to Chechnya know perfectly well that he is dissembling . Islam is the world's leading exporter of political and religious violence . Some Muslims regret it ; others see it as the fulfillment of a Koranic duty . Either way, they don't expect the victims to pretend that the infidel bodies lying dead at their desks in Paris just happened to drop dead . Alibiing for Islam makes Obama come off like Freddo ("Moe didn't mean nothin' by slapping me around, Mikey, he's a good guy. He's sorry, right Moe?"). Corleone . Like Freddo, Obama can be bullied into silence and appeased by insincere apologies . Just how insincere was evident a few days after the Paris massacre when the editors of Charlie Hebdo, in an act of startling courage, put another "offensive" cartoon of Mohammed on the cover of their magazine . Suddenly, it was back to yesterday in the House of Islam . Churches were torched by the faithful in Mali . Wild anti-Western rallies took place from Chechnya to Nigeria . The free-speech loving Imams and Ayatollahs of Josh Earnest's imagination incited worshippers with cries of blasphemy and holy war . The New York Times, house organ of the Obama administration, responded by not publishing the caricature because "some readers" (unspecified) might be offended . Such weakness is entirely transparent to the Muslim world--not only to the jihadis themselves, whose ranks are swelling with every attack but to their countless millions of admirers, apologists and silent supporters . It is also completely clear to Israel . For two years, Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have relentlessly and futilely tried to convince Jerusalem to withdraw from the West Bank and agree to the creation of a Palestinian state . The plan has been on life support for months ; it died--at least for the duration of the Obama administration-- in the kosher supermarket where four Jews were shot dead by a gunman inspired by the (non-denominational!) Islamic Caliphate of Iraq and Syria . The killer dedicated the job to the Palestinian people . The victims were buried in Jerusalem partly because their families feared their graves would be desecrated in France . The funerals coincided with the start of the election season in Israel . Prime Minister Netanyahu, running for a fourth term, is implacably opposed to making concessions to the Palestinian Authority , one of whose components, Hamas, is a branch of the M-word Brotherhood . Obama has made it clear that he would like Netanyahu to lose . This is a good thing for the Prime Minister . Even the left understands that there can be no deal backed by an American Godfather who is who is scared of Moe Greene .
[A]: French Muslims trained by Al Qaeda and inspired by the Islamic Caliphate murder seventeen people in Paris Their battle cry is the Arabic declaration that 'Allah hu Akbar'(Allah is the greatest!)


[Q]: TV debates: why broadcasters should give Cameron the empty chair treatment. In a short time, television debates have become a vital part of our democracy . They were watched by tens of millions of people in the 2010 general election campaign , and the Scottish referendum campaign would have been poorer without the two showdowns between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling live across all media platforms . Now is not the time to retreat from the kind of broadcasting that engages so many voters and illuminates the choices they face . Naturally, I hope all the major parties take part in the 2015 election debates . That will rightly remain the aim of the broadcasters . But I believe they should be resolute in the face of a refusal by one party to take part : the empty chair, or the deserted lectern, should be an option . The BBC guidelines do not specifically cover a national leaders' debate , but the principles they set out argue not just that they can wheel out the empty chair but that they should . On general output, BBC published editorial policy is that one reluctant participant cannot stop an item : "The refusal of an individual or an organisation to make a contribution should not be allowed to act as a veto on the appearance of other contributors." That is confirmed in the various election guidelines , where over the years the ability of one awkward candidate to stop a broadcast has been removed . And the BBC and other broadcasters do use the empty chair, albeit on less high-profile occasions : if a news maker is unwilling to face the cameras , best practice is to say so and to cover the topic anyway . As far back as 1987, when I was Today's political producer, we empty-chaired Labour in a campaign debate on defence - to the fury of their leadership . But they had been given every opportunity to take part and had chosen not to , so we went ahead with the other parties and told our listeners what had happened . There is in this current row a legitimate argument about fairness and about who takes part . The arid bureaucratic view would be that this should be based on the results of the 2010 general election and therefore be a three-way debate between David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg . The rise of Ukip and the surge in multi-party politics have muddied the waters , and the broadcasters are having to be more flexible , and I think the Greens should be somewhere in the mix . However ,  I believe we can trust the BBC, ITV and Sky to come up with the right format and a proposal that offers the appropriate levels of exposure to all the parties in the UK across the whole campaign . It is for them, with the appropriate regulators, to make that judgment and not for individual politicians to seek to exclude or include their opponents . It is, in any case, inevitable that some debates of some kind will happen . The Farage v Clegg encounter just ahead of the European election campaign was an example of the asymmetry that may now happen : it was not part of a formal coverage plan , but it was compelling viewing for anyone interested in politics and millions of people tuned in . The digital debate proposed by the Guardian, Telegraph and Google is one viable alternative ; and there is nothing to stop anyone hiring a hall in Manchester and getting Miliband and Clegg to debate there . I guarantee the broadcasters would turn up , and it is significant that the opposition parties are willing to take part in debates even without the prime minister . The broadcasters may, possibly, face a legal challenge about the allocation of national airtime , but in the court of public opinion it would be a brave act to try to close down a debate in which you have been invited to take part but have chosen not to . I'm pleased to say that I don't sense the broadcasters are wavering , and they are prepared to be tough . They are right - now is the time to hold firm . At a time of lack of faith in politicians, it would be the worst option to allow game-playing to block a format that the public find valuable . Electors have a right to see their potential prime ministers live and unfiltered and at length . Those who are willing to put themselves on the line should be allowed to do so . Those who don't can watch at home and see what an empty chair looks like over 90 minutes of primetime television .
[A]:
In a short time, television debates have become a vital part of our democracy