There is one line in the article that mentions progressive commentary. The article is talking about how CNN leadership wants to get back to “hard news” and less commentary. The comments about how “progressives” are this or that is weird and orthogonal to the article. As if CNN or any other media outlet can’t shift focus because too many of its employees are progressive. This needs a lot more justification than what has been given.
Perhaps the point should have been backed up more, but I don't see that it would have helped to remind us that conservatives and Jihadists can also be vocal or active.
That’s not my point. Bringing up how conservatives are or how any other group is would not be germane to the article without giving evidence that it is appropriate. By asserting that progressives are a certain way and inserting this into the discussion is a form of framing that is not appropriate. It is sort of like a complex question in the logic sense as it assumes a conclusion not established.
Instead of talking about how the company will shift its focus we end up talking about how hard it is to get progressives to change or to be compliant. This then establishes in some peoples’ minds that it is well known and assumed that progressives are hard to deal with. They are pig headed one might conclude. I believe the intentions are underhanded and without merit. I could be wrong.
