A Merger and a Muzzle: Vogue Silences Youth Activism

On Nov. 3, parent company Condé Nast announced in a statement that Teen Vogue would be entering a corporate merger with Vogue.com, a shift that has changed the political and activist foundations of Teen Vogue as the world knows it. 

On the surface, the change was backed by the promise of a “more unified reader experience across titles.” This promise, however, comes at great cost.

Teen Vogue wasn’t always the political powerhouse we know it to be today. The media started with brand-conscious female consumers in mind, but would later shift as the magazine introduced current activist events, such as the #MeToo movement, towards the end of 2017. 

Topics that sometimes lead to concerns over controversy paid off, as Teen Vogue grew to 10 million monthly page views in 12 million social followers by the beginning of 2018.

The magazine became renowned for its daring, political, feminist lens. The magazine didn’t shy away from polarizing topics such as trans healthcare, abortion bans and student protests in support of Gaza. 

Conversely, Vogue has remained publicity-centered with a focus on A-list celebrities and retaining relevance in pop culture. 

As a result of the recent merger, over 70 percent of Teen Vogue staff were laid off. According to Fox Business, these layoffs particularly impacted Black, Indigenous, People of Color and transgender (BIPOC) staffers.

“Nearly all of my former colleagues—including all but one woman of color and the only trans staffer—were let go. The identity and politics sections, which covered reproductive rights, LGBTQ issues, campus organizing, state and national politics, the labor movement, education, and more were folded,” said Allegra Kirkland, who had been the magazine’s politics director since 2019, in an article.

This major loss of diverse voices at Vogue begs questions about the broader uncertainty of the place of political journalism in youth media. Spaces that once empowered young audiences to think critically and politically are being squeezed out by commercial and corporate pressures.

“Teen Vogue has consistently been one of the only media outlets centering the perspectives of young people, and has done so with bravery and honesty. In a moment where our country is experiencing generational shifts in thinking, we are all worse off without their reporting,” said the Roosevelt Institute. 

The mainstream media isn’t cutting it for political coverage. Mishandlings of sensitive media like protests over sexual assault and student debt are leading to uninformed youth.

This concern is furthered by survey consensus that youth don’t feel well-qualified to participate in politics. Further, 34 percent of youth of color say they feel qualified to participate in politics, compared to 44 percent of white youth. This alludes to greater disparities within uninformed youth, making Vogue’s BIPOC-focused layoffs even more harmful. 

Vogue isn’t the only company silencing social and political activism. In September, Jerry Greenfield from the infamous ice cream brand, Ben & Jerry’s, announced in an Instagram post that he would be leaving the company as a result of a loss of autonomy in activism following Unilever’s acquisition of the company.

“Ben & Jerry’s stood up and spoke out in support of peace, justice, and human rights… That independence existed in no small part because of the unique merger agreement Ben and I negotiated with Unilever… It’s profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence, the very basis of our sale to Unilever, is gone.” 

These are only some examples of a greater shift in the role of politics in corporate sectors as large acquisitions silence companies with a larger emphasis on Corporate Social Responsibility. 

Ben & Jerry’s shows how activism can be softened under corporate ownership, but the shift at Vogue demonstrates an even greater loss: the suffocation of essential political voices for youth.

Condé Nast’s deviation from its prior political and activist media marks not only the loss of the loyal following that read the magazine for its unique, proactive voice, but also a broader, significant setback for youth political media—vital to young people’s political competency and confidence.

The magazine once told youth that their voices mattered. Its silencing raises an unsettling question: who will tell them now?