In a vacuum, a world with only one node of representation would make sense seeing as, in that vacuum, there wouldn't be a myriad of cultures that this one node would interact with and, thus, you wouldn't run the risk of falling prey to stereotypes and missteps.
But we don't exist in a vacuum; we exist in a world where there are an untold amount of stories and histories and cultures and traditions out there to experience. If you fill, say, your newsrooms with a limited knowledge set, you'll run afoul of these various nodes of experiences - these various cultures out there that you'll report on and, hopefully, want to read your work(s). It's only logical that you'd want to have a diverse data set in your workforce to avoid missing out on these particular facts and avoid speaking to dulled stereotypes instead of people(s) real, lived experiences, right? Logical.
What's illogical is seeing an argument like this laid out and believing that, none of that matters. That this 'limited data set' is perfectly capable of being the arbiter of what these stories are, how they should be (re)presented, and should be the major player in any game out there.
This is the reality we live in; the world we live in when it comes to diversity in hiring and representation. Either you believe that diversity helps tell a better story (it does; there are studies showing that more diverse stories yields better results) or that it doesn't matter and having a non-diverse "diversity of ideas" is enough because it maintains only one group need be present in the idea process.
