It's a bullshit assertion to make, IMO. But that (of course) does not stop a buffoon like the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart from making it.
|On the Fact that If Leftist Media Buffoons Like John Oliver and Stephen Colbert Truly Had the Power of Their Supposed Convictions They Would Voluntarily Give Up Their High Profile Gigs and Let a Deserving African-American or Woman Have Them Instead... Holding your breath? I'm not (the fact that idiots like this always talk a good game but when it come to making sacrifices themselves they never seem to). (3/5/2016 AT 10:03pm).|
A buffoon is "a person who amuses others by ridiculous or odd behaviour, jokes, etc", btw, and I definitely think Willis saying that White male talk show hosts can't say they think more minorities and/or women should be employed in the industry they work in - without themselves quitting - is absolute bullcrap.
First, they've got contracts and thus can NOT "give up" their high profile gigs. Second, they aren't the ones that did the hiring. If they had pled with their employers to hire a "deserving African-American or woman" instead, that wouldn't guarantee that would have happened.
But this is the "hypocrisy" argument you see coming QUITE frequently from the Right. That a rich man can't be a champion for the less well off without giving his wealth away is the most common variant, although the common man is indicted as a hypocrite if he advocates for greater equality whilst using the products of a capitalist society (think OWS protestors being pilloried for daring to use iphones and Macbooks) .
But this is a fallicous argument. The reason those on the Right (like Willis) make such assertions is because they don't want these arguments being made (file such comments under "stoogery", IMO).
Anyway, WHO BETTER than someone already in said position to advocate that more minorities/women get the job? I personally give Oliver and Colbert kudos for saying such things. The ONLY buffoon I see is Willis Hart. (Not that I know what specific comments the Hartster is referring to, given the fact that he, as usual, leaves his readers guessing in that regard).
 This is called The Champagne Socialist Fallacy, a strawman that allows it's user to "rebuke entire arguments without even having to engage with a solitary point. [However] there is a level of hypocrisy in almost any egalitarian, rich or poor... This hypocrisy does not nullify their conviction; it is merely an outcome of the oligopoly we live in. The very idea that the privileged are speaking out against a system that has disproportionately benefited them should be revealing. A working class person hailing socialism will be dubbed envious; she or he lacked the individual merit to succeed... However, a rich person [who supports] a systemic redistribution of wealth is [acting] directly against their economic interests. And thus, in this respect, it is more poignant that they support it nonetheless" (excerpted from a diatribe by James Wright).