Hopefully you are hiring writers to report on the objective state of the world, not pursue a particular perspective.
The parent post expressed hope they were hiring writers who would 'report on the objective state of the world, not pursue a particular perspective'. I was pointing out that these are not opposites.
We often think of 'objective' as the opposite of 'biased', but it isn't: it's substituting a personal bias with an impersonal one. This certainly has it's place - it's critical in the sciences - but objectivity has limits when you're dealing with people.
A key strength for any good journalist is the ability to contextualize a story for their readers - not just provide objective facts, but answer the question "What does this mean to me?" A journalists' background and personal perspective - their bias - are relevant because they inform that context.
Or so my amateurish thinking goes. I'd be much interested in a more learned perspective on this, but haven't really found anything yet.
There is real value in reading about the same topic from differing perspectives. Not all writing is or aspires to be purely fact-based journalism, and that's okay.
It's reasonable that The Markup wants to hire group of people with diverse viewpoints on how "powerful institutions are using technology in ways that impact people and society". I would be surprised and underwhelmed if they had e.g. only software engineers or only consumer rights activists writing.
The issue is their assumption that only non-white, non-males have interesting things to say about how "powerful institutions are using technology in ways that impact people and society".
If you want to hire people with diverse viewpoints, then look for people with diverse viewpoints. It's incredibly easy to fill a room with people who look like a Benetton poster but who all read the same books in the same colleges and all rigidly adhere to the same dogma. It's incredibly easy to use tokenism to justify your own prejudices. It's difficult to build a genuinely diverse collaboration based on profound and meaningful differences of perspective.
US Supreme Court jurisprudence more or less. No one actually cares about diversity as a goal. The political coalition that passed the Civil Rights Act looked around, saw they’d won and wanted more stuff for their constituents. Affirmative action was one of the ways to get more stuff. It’s also illegal under a plain reading of equal rights. For reasons I’m unqualified to opine on a quota system is too blatant legally (also explicit points based systems with group X getting Y extra points) so the Supreme Court went with diversity as an acceptable workaround to get to the desired goal of getting more stuff for the desired interest groups. This all happened in the context of university admissions and the buzzword spread from the case law.
Same as free speech or state’s rights people who genuinely believe in them are rare compared to those who use them as talking points when convenient and drop them when not.
In under a generation people go from arguing that everyone deserves equal rights and dignity to campaigning for explicit racial privileges for their side, or from supporting the right of the federal government to seize slaves who escape and travel to a free state to yakking about state’s rights to justify Jim Crow, or the one we’re in the trailing end of right now, the transition from free speech being a left wing value to a right wing one. When the right had the establishment the left was all about people’s right to speak and be heard. Now that they’re in charge it’s safe spaces and hate speech. Or look at the collapse of the anti-war movement once Obama was elected. Bush bombed Muslims for eight years, Obama bombed Muslims for eight years. Bush destroyed Iraq and had no real effect in Afghanistan as it comes pre destroyed. Obama destroyer Libya and cape quite close with Syria before his good sense overcame the presence of Hilary Clinton in his cabinet.
Politics is overwhelmingly about sides, coalitions and spoils. Insofar as it’s about ideology most people have 1-3 things they really care about and the rest they’re pretty happy to modify to fit in with their coalition.
In fact, the whole thrust of my comment was that it's sometimes desirable to have "a genuinely diverse collaboration based on profound and meaningful differences of perspective", and the last paragraph of my post calls out the "nice looking poster" approach.
What point are you trying to make? It sounds to me like we're largely agreeing.