This business about James Bennet has me thinking about how it's in the self-interest of editors to pretend that they have a special skill at identifying and nurturing talent, but in my experience it's not true. Talent is abundant, opportunity is lacking. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/talent-abundant

Bennet's successor, Jeffrey Goldberg, thought that the # of people who could write a 10,000 word cover story was rare, and mostly white males and it would take a process to bring enough women up to snuff. This is self-mythologizing B.S. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/talent-abundant

Throw open the doors, don't pre-judge what talent looks like or the package it comes in, keep yourself open to alternative appearances of excellence and you will have no trouble assembling a diverse array of people to write for your publication.

That was my experience @mcsweeneys anyway.

The people who get opportunities are those who are in good stead with the editors who wield power, which is why it's near impossible to dislodge folks from those spots no matter how awful they are. Also why they're recycled. Someone always owes them something.

To be clear, this is not saying that editors don't have an important role, they do. I love editors. I am one. It's just that the talent identification part of the role is not the important part and nurturing talent is mostly about encouragement and removing obstacles.

Beware the editor that promises to turn you into someone if you just stick with them. You're probably already someone, which is why the editor is trying to yoke you to themselves. Plenty of editors out there who don't require that bargain.