Great point, Sophie. Editors should be judged by what they publish, rather than their carbon dating. Let's see what kind of magazine he puts out.

I generally agree that youth are often too quickly dismissed or underestimated, though I was surprised when I read that a 23 year old was hired into the senior position. There was so much discussion about the reasons why Warhaft left the Monthly - issues of how much control the board wanted - that my first thought when I heard about it was to wonder if the hiring had anything to do with a the fact that less experienced editor might be easier to guide? That's the cynic in me...

I've never heard of the new editor, but he has an impressive resume. I'm looking forward to seeing where the Monthly goes under his care.

I do agree that the controversy before his appointment makes a fairly cynical response inevitable. But like you I want to see what he does before I comment one way or the other.

I was very dismissive of this appointment when I heard, simply because the reason Warhaft was made to leave - that she would not back down when confronted by two dominant older males (nor should she have, as editor) - suggests the key reason for this particular appointment.

He'll do what he's told. Manne has said as much.

Linking this to the Gangland phenomenon is an interesting slant. I tend to think like Greg that the arrangement he's reportedly been hired under, where the editor must 'work closely' with the board, suggests they view his youth as confirming he'll be malleable.

Linking this to the Gangland phenomenon is an interesting slant. I tend to think like Greg G that the arrangement he's reportedly been hired under, where the editor must 'work closely' with the board, suggests they view his youth as meaning he'll be malleable.

I can't see what all the fuss is about. So long as he's white, right? Tell me he's white.

23 is very young, and risky... but not impossibly young. This is a useful post - it's good to remember that -- going decades and even centuries back -- young (but accomplished) people have contributed crucial things. A google search of this new editor's name turns up a publication CV as impressive as plenty of 30-somethings. It's impossible to judge properly until he has done the job for a while, but it's more invigorating to have a young, smart brain around than the same few babyboomers, right? Sniffy comments about him being "maleable", and sweeping statements about why Sally Warhaft was dropped, presume more knowledge of behind the scence office politics stuff than any of us can claim. Much of the age-obsessed sneering smacks of 35-year-old journos who can't bear to think that they're no longer the brightest youngest things on the block.

23 is very young, and risky... but not impossibly young. This is a useful post - it's good to remember that -- going years and decades and even centuries back -- young (but undeniably talented and accomplished) people have contributed crucial things. A google search of this new editor's name turns up a publication CV as impressive as plenty of 30-somethings. It's impossible to judge properly until he has done the job for a while, but it's more invigorating to have a fresh brain around than the same few babyboomers, right? Sniffy comments about him being "maleable", and sweeping statements about why Sally Warhaft (who was plenty young and inexperienced herself when she started - wasn't that the beauty of her?) left, presume more knowledge of behind the scences politics than any/most of us can claim, don't they? Much of the age-obsessed sneering smacks of 35-year-old journos who can't bear to think that they're no longer the brightest youngest things on the block. (I say this as a 33-yr-old hack who sympathizes.) Good luck to him, and thereby to us. Thanks for a good post.

sorry, posted twice, my technological stupidity. a 23-yr-old would never do that.

GeoffY - I never claimed that young people cannot do great things. I maintain that - in the specific - The Monthly is run by two old men with strong personalities who have demonstrated frequently that they will brook no opposition. Manne has said - before the new editor was hired - that the next editor would only be working as one member of an editorial board. The deck has been stacked.

Interesting that you mention Gangland, wasn't Manne mentioned as one of the cultural gatekeepers way back then?

I meant to direct the second paragraph to Sophie! Oops...

Maxine: he certainly looks white. Greg G: Yes, Manne was one of the gatekeepers mentioned in Gangland. Laura: I agree they probably hope he is malleable. But let's see what happens -he may not be - much as Warharft 'failed' to be eternally grateful (ie. malleable) once she got a few editions under her belt.

It's true that Ben Naparstek may have been hired because Manne and Schwartz think his youth makes him more 'malleable', but frankly I find the ageism going around the media right now extremely condescending. Just because someone is 23 does not mean they are lightweight. There are so many young writers and editors doing great things right now. The media should at least wait to see what he can come up with before making these implications. If anything, Naparstek will have to do twice as much to prove himself.

I agree with you about condescension Jess, but as David Penberthy said in Crikey, the dumb jokes about youth are masking a genuine angle on this story, and it comes about because of the way the previous incumbent was shafted.

GeoffY, it doesn't cut much ice to slam aegism w/r/t the worth of young people on one hand, and to go the 'tired babyboomers' on the other.

I just think that with babyboomers the likelihood of them sending their VCE results to The Australian, as Naparstek has reportedly done, is kind of slim. Having been around the block a few times protects you from self-sabotaging gaucherie, or it ought to. (There's got to be some compensation for getting old.)

We live in such an age-segregated society that I think we've unintentionally radicalised the notion that age isn't linked to talent. Experience is acquired with age, certainly, but this is not the sole arbiter of someone's ability to do a job well - or at least, it shouldn't be. Intelligence is native. Turning 45 doesn't bestow the gift of people-skills. Different people have different strengths, but while you can always argue that age equals experience, when taken as a base hiring principle, it smacks of valuing quantity above all else. If someone is skilled, age shouldn't enter into it, regardless of where on the spectrum they fall.

Of course, I'm 23 myself, and therefore biased.

Of course, the amount of chatter the choice has caused presents the motive of stunt casting: it's certainly changed the topic of conversation about The Monthly.

I think even Manne and Schwartz may have realised how deep the hole they were digging themselves was. Now they have created a situation where their opponents are seen to be attacking someone who had no part in the whole sorry mess.

I note Manne has joined in on the accusations of ageism.

I think there's something about having parents who are both psychiatrists that makes you make more likely to become a boy genius, capable of completing an Arts/Law degree with honours in 3.5 years. This is a stepping stone, 'I'll put it on my CV', type job for him.

Ben actually seems like a great fit for the magazine. Based on what I've read of his - mainly interviews published in the Sydney Morning Herald's Spectrum (syndicated, I assume, from The Age) - he's an interviewer with a wide knowledge of those he is interviewing and writing about (he's got some big names in the bag too - Toni Morrison among them). I think any problem with his appointment is coming from the existing problems with The Monthly and it's fading energy and closed circuit circle of writers. Hopefully, Neparstek will be able to open the net a little and bring in some new blood. It'll be really interesting to see whether he can shake things up and those first few issues, the first year even, will be telling. Looking forward to it.

I'm 27 and don't see the debate around Naparstek's appointment as 'ageism'. He sounds gifted, but surely an editorship benefits from experience? I hope he does a good job - I love the magazine - and stands up to the editorial board.

I would add that a pertinent question to ask now is how much publicity has The Monthly received since giving the job to a 23 year old? A stack. I doubt The Age Online would have published a story on its front page had the new editor been Mr/Ms 40-something academic.

It certainly is a good way to shift the controversy - from sacking an editor to the youngest appointee. Naparstek is used to duelling with some literary titans so perhaps the Manne and Scwartz might have a fair fight on their hands. Youth (or age) shouldn't enter into it.