Another explanation is that interviewing people in positions of authority is unavoidable and those people are disproportionately male at present. But the point of this article is that they looked at the data and it didn't reveal what they expected.
I meant the word to encompass a lot of different qualities. For instance if a story is told better with a first hand account of an authority, then that authority is of interest to the story, and hence that authority is interesting (as he or she relates to the story).
Take the Olympics for example. Different body types, genetically predetermined before birth, will give certain people advantages in one sport, but disadvantages in other sports. Tall people have a huge advantage in volleyball, basketball, etc, but not soccer. Kenyans have an advantage at long distance running, but I doubt they are a common sight in the powerlifting arena. Want to climb Mt Everest? More than likely, a Sherpa would go with you, because they have unique physical qualifications.
There's nothing inherently "better" about all these people, but they do happen to have an inherent advantage when it comes to performing specific tasks.
The argument that all people ought to be proportionally represented in every endeavor ignores the basic fact that people have distinctly different skill sets based on their genetic makeup.