> Teen Vogue actually happens to be pretty responsible journalism that usually does better than that.

On what basis do you say that?

On the basis that Teen Vogue got a lot of attention around 2016–17 for its political journalism.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/12/te...

https://qz.com/866305/the-true-story-of-how-teen-vogue-got-m...

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/teen-vogues-evolution-high-f...

That primarily happened under former editor Elaine Welteroth; she left shortly after Condé Nast killed the print edition, and it's my impression that TV has been moving back toward a fashion focus -- although a glance at their web site shows that they're still doing political reporting and op-eds.

At least the second link you posted suggests that the attention they garnered was less about remarkable journalism on its own merit, and more about supporting a reactionary "woke" political narrative.

I think this is similar to the Sokal Squared[0] scandal, in that a tribe (in this case purveyors of progressivism) will judge some work unduly positively.

Put another way, Teen Vogue's notoriety at the time was less "wow, this is truly groundbreaking journalism", and more "wow! Teen Vogue usually writes about makeup, but now they've gone all serious, and they said Fuck Trump! And Fuck Trump indeed! Go Feminism!"

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

Calling something "woke" and fabricating quotes to discredit makes you look hysterical.

I don't understand. The word "woke" was literally used in the headline of the second article from the parent comment. Furthermore, I have not quoted anyone, therefore it is impossible for me to have "fabricated" any quotes.

I would argue that given your evidently gross misinterpretation of my comment, it is now actually you who looks hysterical.

I do agree with you point about bias.

But you did "air quote" for satire.

Quartz's article (the second link) made the case that Teen Vogue seemed exceptional because the general public by and large finds the idea of "women's magazines" publishing articles about anything other than fashion and makeup to be mind-blowingly weird. While I think it's true that we humans as a whole are inclined to overpraise that which we already agree with and to criticize that which we already disagree with, it's not as if the journalism landscape of 2016–17 was lacking in reporting/opinion critical of Trump. I would suggest that if TV did get disproportionate attention for theirs, it was because it ran counter to the popular stereotype of women's/teen-girl magazines, even though one could make the case -- as Quartz did -- that there's actually always been both a journalistic streak and a feminist streak in many of them.

In any case, I think the point in the context of TV publishing and unpublishing the Facebook fluff piece is that doing that sort of thing runs counter to the more recent perception of them as politically savvy enough to understand how publishing a PR-provided article like that might look to their audience in particular.

They also work with a number of wall street banks for research, and were chosen for this specifically for their quality and integrity. The Goldman Sachs Teen Vogue millennial market annuals come to mind. Those were great.

Good question