Glenn Greenwald actually said this to a reporter:
“One of the problems of old media organizations is this incredibly homogenized, narrow range of viewpoints that get expressed. That comes from a really homogenized range of backgrounds—going to the same schools, coming from the same socio-economic environment—which produces a kind of stagnant, herd, groupthink. I honestly believe that in order to be an interesting, vibrant, provocative, innovative news organization you absolutely need diversity, in the people who are editing, and in the people who are writing the journalism.”
Do we even need to outline why this is so ridiculous? When do you suppose The Intercept will hire writers and reporters who disagree with Greenwald’s view of the intelligence community or the Obama administration or the role of the United States as a global leader or the use of unmanned aerial vehicles or [insert other Greenwald hobby horse here]. You know, because herd groupthink is bad.
Of course that will never happen in a million years. Hell, Greenwald routinely blocks people who disagree with him (politely or otherwise) on Twitter — is there any chance Greenwald would dare hire, say, Joshua Foust or Charles Johnson or Edward Lucas? Never. Because The Intercept, contrary to the Greenwald rant above, is a bubble. It’s just as hive-minded as the traditional news media Greenwald disdains so much.
As far as diversity goes, let’s look at the staff at The Intercept. Out of 14 staffers, there are only three women, in spite of the fact that women represent more than half of the population. And there’s only one African-American on the staff, and he hasn’t published any articles so far.
Smells like “diversity” to me. No homogenization here.
.@bobcesca_go First Look is highly diverse; you can think the US is evil or you can think Glenn Greenwald is humanity's savior.
— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) March 27, 2014