I personally think that CNN should hire Rachal Marsden as an effort to quell accusations of partisanship and bias because she would have a lot of ideas as well as thoughts to bring. I personally think that CNN should hire Rachal Marsden because she is able to say what she need to say and having a debate about it.
I do not believe CNN should hire Rachel Marsden as an effort to quell accusations of partisanship and bias. This woman has proven herself to a psychopath to anyone who crosses her way and she tends to tear people down while stepping on them to reach the next level of fame. She shouldn't be offered a job by anyone.
No, CNN should not hire Rachel Marsden as an effort to quell accusations of partisanship and bias, because there will be no convincing either side. The Republicans will always think CNN is biased, and the Democrats will always think that CNN is fair and that Fox News is biased. Hiring someone as a token won't change people's minds.
No, CNN should not hire Rachel Marsden as evidence of their lack of bias. This is not unique to this situation, though. No employer should hire an employee for any reason other than their skills, talents, and personal characteristics that make that person the most qualified applicant for that position.
This media idea that the news needs to have crazies from the right and the left wing on staff is out of control. There is no longer debate, it just becomes a screaming match. Name a political news pundit that hasn't raised their voice at an opposing speaker and I'll show you someone unemployed. The news is no longer about the issues, its about the argument. Profit is to blame. If we can turn the news into a soap opera, more people watch and more people pay to advertise.