unconvinced
if you mean "diverse" as in many different people then i agree with you. that's a benefit to the public interest that people of all political stripes, or no stripe at all, could agree on.
but if you mean diverse as in "racially diverse"--and that certainly seemed to be how the original poster was using it--well, that's a benefit to the public interest that only people of a particular political persuasion are concerned about: the moderate- to far-left. this surprised me, given what i thought i knew about common cause. assuming a finite number of media outlets to potentially be owned, an increase in one sort of diversity necessarily means a decrease in another. and i assumed a group like common cause would be more concerned with a diversity of political viewpoints among media-owners than with diversity based on arbitrary genetic markers.
as for "unworkable," i merely meant that i couldn't see how it could be done. it's not like there's a law banning women or minorities from owning radio stations that you could campaign to overturn. media outlets are commodities. anyone can buy them. anyone can sell them. i suppose you could "encourage" women and minorities to pool their money and buy themselves a newspaper, but again, to what end? a wider array of skin-hues and genitalia at the expense of a wider intellectual or political spectrum? that the former is preferable to the latter is a purely leftist idea. and i was surprised to see it promoted on the website of a non-partisan group.
but you're right. i should poke around more before casting aspersions, or more likely just continuing my lonely quest. i'll go do that now. i sincerely wasn't trying to argue.
b
| 
