Let’s face it: The conversation about diversity in journalism is mostly boring hand-wringing. With each new byline count, it’s easy to despair that gender and ethnic diversity is mostly a pipe dream—a goal that applies more to HR handbooks than actual newsroom practices.

But earlier this month, after MSNBC announced it was giving Chris Hayes his own daily primetime news show, Media Matters published a chart that showed how his weekend show, Up with Chris Hayes, differed from its cable-news competitors: It wasn’t all white dudes. Specifically, 57 percent of the show’s guests were not white men. (Full disclosure: I have, in the past, been one of the non-dudes featured on said program.) To hear lots of journalists tell it, this is an impossible feat. So I called up Hayes to ask how he and his team created a shining oasis of diversity in a cable-news desert of sameness.
“We just would look at the board and say, ‘We already have too many white men. We can’t have more.’ Really, that was it,” Hayes says. “Always, constantly just counting. Monitoring the diversity of the guests along gender lines, and along race and ethnicity lines.” Out of four panelists on every show, he and his booking producers ensured that at least two were women. “A general rule is if there are four people sitting at table, only two of them can be white men,” he says. “Often it would be less than that.”
If they did end up booking a show that featured a majority of white men, they’d call it “taking a gender hit.” Hayes explains, “and then we’d be like, well, we have to make up for that either in the second half of the show or on the Sunday show.”
In other words: quotas. Hard quotas.
“The editorial decisions, the content we decided to pursue, also dovetailed with that,” he continues. “We had three Iraqis join us when we talked about the 10-year anniversary of the war. We did a full show about feminism. And so, part of it is that we weren’t talking about the Ryan budget every week. Often we were discussing topics on which there was a natural affinity between people of backgrounds different than the standard one that is often presented on television.”

But sometimes national politics is the hottest topic, and some argue that media can’t be held to a diversity standard when women and people of color are so drastically underrepresented in relevant spokesperson and leadership positions. Hayes acknowledges that, for shows like Meet the Press, there’s probably something to that excuse. But most news outlets aren’t only talking to senators and CEOs. There’s a wide range of perspectives that can be brought to bear on any number of political issues. And, without a quota, it’s easy to default to the same handful of big names.
“You have to say, ‘We give ourselves this rule,’ and that’s going to force us to just be more resourceful,” Hayes says. “Because I genuinely don’t think there’s another way to do it. If you don’t do that then the inertia and the tide are so strong, unless you are committed as a priority to actively fight against it, you’re going to end up reproducing what everyone else does.”
As he makes the transition to primetime, he plans to keep a quota system. “It’s going to be even harder to do at a daily level than it was at two shows a week,” he says. “But we’re a thousand percent committed to it.” After all, it’s part of what made his weekend show so successful. 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.”

Thumbs up to Chris Hayes and his crew. This is cool.
#1 Posted by Salient, CJR on Thu 28 Mar 2013 at 05:57 PM
It's not just their diversity that makes Hayes' guest distinct from what you usually see on the Sunday talk shows -- they also tend to know what they're talking about, even the conservatives (Douthat excepted).
#2 Posted by hells littlest angel, CJR on Thu 28 Mar 2013 at 06:29 PM
Here's a great cost-cutting efficiency-inducing idea!
You take a bunch of people of different creeds, genders, races, and cultures, but no Christians, white ones...then you cut them up into the prescribed percentages according to your calculations for inclusiveness, then you sew them back up together!
The ULTIMATE GUEST. It would save GE BILLIONS.
No, I don't want any royalties, this is a freebie, on the house. But, I'm white, so you must factor that in.
#3 Posted by Rev Dr. E Buzz, CJR on Fri 29 Mar 2013 at 07:26 AM
Finally, finally, finally someone breaks through the "white male" ceiling. I'm all for white men. A white man raised me, but man so many of the same ones are on week after week with the same old spiel. It's so refreshing to hear something different and women (as long as they aren't Carly Fiorina or Cokie, Nancy, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Leslie, etc.) and non-white guests, can really punch up a conversation. Thanks Chris. I hope this is a beginning of a trend.
#4 Posted by Deb T, CJR on Fri 29 Mar 2013 at 11:01 AM
Rev - I know you are just here to troll, but your metaphor is really repulsive, and it reveals your own underlying bias against individuals with diverse perspectives.
Also, I'm very excited to watch Chris every night! This is great news for one of the most interesting hosts on TV, next to Christina Harris-Perry.
#5 Posted by Dustin, CJR on Fri 29 Mar 2013 at 12:28 PM
Racial quotas? I have read about it in the history books. I think it was something about Germany from the 1930s.
Of course this latest is done for a good cause. I think those Germans thought of their quotas the same way. Certain aspects of life in Germany back then were dominited by a certain group of people. THey made sure it did not last.
The 21st century American Liberals can congratulate themselves - they learned.
Thank you Columbia Journal Review "The future of Media [bias] is here"
#6 Posted by A.F., CJR on Fri 29 Mar 2013 at 02:10 PM
Just don't expect much in the way of diversity of thought. This is MSNBC, after all.
#7 Posted by Brian Garst, CJR on Fri 29 Mar 2013 at 02:30 PM
I know it is extremely popular on the right to trot out the "racial quotas" argument whenever someone wants to utilize a mechanism (any mechanism) to create a system that produces a diversity of voices and ideas on issues of the day. I get that it is about all they can provide as an argument, but really, where were these guys (almost always guys) when there was an obvious quota for white males? Women and people of differing cultural and ethnic backgrounds were considered "exceptions to the rule" with the "rule" being...white men first. It is also important to note that it is not just white men but the SAME white men all the time. I mean really, how may "exclusive" interviews can Meet the Press have with John McCain?
The key idea here is that putting that kind of rule into effect means the default is to look for other voices. Hell, there are conservative voices and faces (including conservatives of color and gender) on Hayes' shows that are also never seen on the typical "discussion" shows, and I use "discussion' loosely here.
#8 Posted by paddler, CJR on Fri 29 Mar 2013 at 09:40 PM
Remember, everyone: what's important is the color of our skin, not the content of our character. I think some important guy said that once.
#9 Posted by M., CJR on Sun 31 Mar 2013 at 03:17 AM
Of course, when the rest of the national news has totally non representative guests who're vastly majority white males, none of the people here seem to care. Because they'd have us believe that it's JUST A COINCIDENCE.
A coincidence that's being going on for 100s of years.
And the important thing is, of course, to make sure that coincidence keeps happening by comparing one TV show who tries to balance this out by inviting more non-white-male guests as some sort of precursor to Nazi Germany.
And of course, the preference to this precursor to Nazi Germany is to keep having white men run things COINCIDENTALLY. Because actual quotas are bad. The important thing is to avoid quotas, which keeps white men in power, thus avoiding an analogy with a state where white men were in power because of actual quotas.
If you mention "diversity" in a conservatie speech, it's used as a term of insult. But conservatives don't believe in ACTUAL quotas. Just coincidental ones.
#10 Posted by Josh Jasper, CJR on Sun 31 Mar 2013 at 11:50 AM
Ah yes. A racialist puff-piece, peppered with unabashed anti-Anglo racism, and a cute racist .gif for good measure. Just another shining example of Good Journalism according to CJR. *smh*
#11 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Mon 1 Apr 2013 at 06:13 AM
Only white people denigrate their own 'race' - one of the sure signs of 'whiteness' is this particular obsession. Among other unintentionally comic aspects of this piece is that, by the standard of racial ideology, Chris Hayes represents 'white males'.
#12 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 1 Apr 2013 at 12:46 PM
So diversifying guests = racism against whites right? Just like giving more women higher paid jobs is misandry because its more about their gender and colour than it is about their skill right? That makes it unfair right? Get over yourself. White men have had the advantage for a long time. There are plenty of ethnic and female people who are as good as white males in all careers, its time to move aside - if you want to be included you're just going to have to be better at your job rather than relying on your privilege. Sound unfair? Try being twice as good and still getting passed over because of your race and gender, then you can complain.
#13 Posted by san, CJR on Mon 1 Apr 2013 at 01:37 PM
Dear San, CJR, et al.,
You make all the wrong assumptions and are liable to only harm those whose "rights" you claim to champion. Firstly: I'm not a "white male"; nor are my social-group identities relevant anyway. Secondly: Natural rights, autonomy, and dignity are with the individual and not the group; non-"minorities" have just so much a right to be free of "discrimination," etc., as do "minorities." Lastly: No self-respecting, self-thinking "minority" likes being made dependent on long-failed govt "plans" for "upward mobility"; those "programs" make them vassals of the State and cannon fodder for its social hucksters. The same "minorities" don't like being being demeaned by the term minority in the first place, or being cynically pigeon-holed according to their skin tone, "race," etc. So drop the pseudo-liberal, social-engineering BS and try approaching each person as an individual. Stop herding people into groups — and giving them special "rights" accordingly — like a totalitarian statist. Thanks, in advance.
#14 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Mon 1 Apr 2013 at 06:24 PM
Guess what? Most Americans are not white males! Makes sense that we hear from the majority now and then.
#15 Posted by Caroline , CJR on Wed 3 Apr 2013 at 10:13 AM
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/all-spin-with-chris-hayes-for-new-msnbc-primetime-host-diversity-is-only-skin-deep/
#16 Posted by dee bob, CJR on Thu 4 Apr 2013 at 12:33 AM
Has Hayes heard this comment, before? He sounds like a bigot, assuming all Brown and Black people have the same thoughts, aligned with his.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
#17 Posted by dee bob, CJR on Thu 4 Apr 2013 at 12:37 AM
Nice try, Dan A, but these are smart people here talking about news diversity, not likely to buy a coded spiel about how evil liberals are your enemy.
#18 Posted by beejeez, CJR on Thu 4 Apr 2013 at 03:25 PM
Troll-speak: "Nice try, Dan A, but these are smart people here talking about news diversity, not likely to buy a coded spiel about how evil liberals are your enemy."
Translation: "I am unable to dispute your argument, so you're a so-and-so with evil intentions."
Forfeit accepted. But at least try next time, m'kay? Good. Now, do a little studying of traditional philosophy before you craft another mindless non-argument. I'll get you started with a brief lesson on who among us is liberal. A liberal does not want the govt to punish or reward an individual based on the individual's skin color, ethnicity, or other group identity. No, that kind of forced "equality" is a prog-statist position rooted in Marxian class-theory. You're welcome.
#19 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 12 Apr 2013 at 03:50 AM
What's the point of the images that accompany this article?
#20 Posted by KP, CJR on Fri 26 Apr 2013 at 11:19 AM