Even if it is a symptom – say they're interviewing CEOs for a piece on Canadian business, so it's tricky to find people who are not white men – then I would argue that what they're doing is important.

There's a chicken and egg thing, and media can be a part of addressing the root cause. To me it seems logical that a young black woman who sees a black female CEO interviewed on TV is more likely to become a CEO herself.

"To me it seems logical that a young black woman who sees a black female CEO interviewed on TV is more likely to become a CEO herself. "

Beware logic in this case. A lot of claims in social sciences seem logical, but either aren't proven at all or the alleged proof fails to replicate.

A similar logic was used to argue for banning violent video games or porn.

This is a strawman argument. That some claims aren’t proven or that some similar logic was used to do another bad thing doesn’t mean OP is wrong. What OP is referring to is largely documented and is not some small claim from a random article.

[citations needed]

Lots of previously believed claims fail to replicate. One of those is "stereotype threat", which was basically taken for granted for decades and also looks logically plausible.

https://replicationindex.com/2017/04/07/hidden-figures-repli...

That’s not that simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat

> Some researchers have suggested that stereotype threat should not be interpreted as a factor in real-life performance gaps, and have raised the possibility of publication bias. […] However, meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown significant evidence for the effects of stereotype threat, though the phenomenon defies over-simplistic characterization.

I don't think it's the media's job to fix societal problems - just to accurately reflect them. But if CBC is only interviewing white male CEOs, they're not accurately reflecting anything.