This is important:

[Journalists, lobbyists, and professional activists] aren't the only people who participate in--or are affected by--politics.... The idea of limiting the discussion to just one of those dimensions seems silly if it's stated in those terms, or if you actually care about a real discussion.

But there are people who have real interests in keeping political conversations circumscribed. Making those interests transparent rather than presenting them as an unfortunate result of the market is one of the reasons Hayes' commitment to diversity is valuable. The whiteness of cable television is a choice, not a natural order.

And, from the original CJR interview:

Hayes has heard from the audience that they appreciate the fresh faces and perspectives that this rule has forced him to cultivate.

"You talk to people that not everyone else talks to, have people writing for you who aren't writing for everyone else," he says. "I think it was a big part of the show's success. It wasn't just a kind of dutiful exercise in diversity. It created tangible editorial rewards."

Not that diversity isn't important, but I'm afraid this thread is going to have a hard time competing with pinkeye and leaky brains.

What Hayes is doing makes a lot of sense. Having rules is a good way to counteract laziness.

However, the linked article is unimpressive. In particular, the example chosen in that article is borderline offensive. "How do you get more black people on TV? Well why don't we just interview more people who are on welfare!"

I've never seen the show, but I always think of it as "Up your butt With Chris Hayes"

"How do you get more black people on TV? Well why don't we just interview more people who are on welfare!"

Eh?

I can see how you get there, but I read the comment about interviewing people who have used food stamps for an extended period of time as continuing the thought of, "[Journalists, lobbyists, and professional activists] aren't the only people who participate in--or are affected by--politics" rather than responding specifically to the goal of having more women/people of color.

3: Yeah, I thought the example was stupid and poorly chosen even on the topic of "how people are affected," never mind race.

Having rules is a good way to counteract laziness.

Incidentally, I thought one of the great strengths of The Checklist Manifesto was the way it used a variety of examples to elaborate on that thought.

Not that diversity isn't important, but I'm afraid this thread is going to have a hard time competing with pinkeye and leaky brains.

meet

Having rules is a good way to counteract laziness.

I'm not quite sure what the quota rule should be, though. 1 comment on a policy thread for every 2 on one that concerns personal health issues, or fun things?

I'm not quite sure what the quota rule should be, though.

When I saw that you commented I was expecting you to advocate selecting Sunday Talk Show guests randomly . . .

Melissa Harris-Perry does some of this on her MSNBC show as well.

Witt, I see that there's a piece at that link following up on the magazine article in your city that you mentioned a couple of days ago -- don't know if you've seen it. The Grio interviewed the magazine's editor.

I'm afraid this thread is going to have a hard time competing with pinkeye and leaky brains.

At least not now that everyone knows to go look for pinkeye and leaky brain threads...

I was having a nice time at the farmers' market yesterday until I sat down next to a woman who was indoctrinating her ?grandkids? in other-hate. She was deep into explaining that all dreadlocks are filthy and have bugs inside because you can't really wash them. Stink-eye didn't work on her. (Pink-eye would have been counterproductive, I guess.)