Having thought about this, I suspect there is probably a 'Normal distribution', ("bell curve") of pilot's ability against their age.
By ability, I mean a combination of experience and competance.
Experience implies age but it is not a direct connection. Experience cannot be measured by total hours alone (because for example widebody jet cruise pilots hours are not comparable to "Low Cost" turboprop hours). Take offs and landings and types flown perhaps need to be taken into consideration too.
So young pilots with very little experience generally have less 'ability' than the norm, but much older pilots who have a lot of experience but who may be slowing down in their thought processes also might have reducing ability - hence possibly why some accidents happen to very experienced pilots?
However, age is not a reliable indicator either, because one 50 year old pilot might have been flying since they were 17, another might be a career changer in only their 5th year of flying.
I also think that this preoccupation by newspapers of a pilots' hours probably comes from the same reason that makes reporters want to quote people's ages. It's not usually all that relevant, but it gives them something to write?