Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Vanity Fair magazine is a dead man walking

"The fact is, no one reads Vanity Fair anymore. It’s become irrelevant. Even their website has lost substantial traffic…Newer editor Radhika Jones has squandered what she received on arrival."

No surprise. The only surprise is that Conde Nast keeps losers on the payroll as long as they do. You could fix the magazine's problems in half a day. But there is zero sense of what core Vanity Fair readers want. Why Conde Nast hasn't also shuttered the ridiculous (pro-multiple gender and pro-obesity) queer zine 'Them', which is also read by no one, is an utter mystery. It must be hemorrhaging cash.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 286May 20, 2020 8:04 AM

You can’t comment on articles on their website. I can understand their not wanting people writing “This is stoopid” and other nonsense. Read them & discard. But a well written response is interesting. I’m sure these magazines had sxletters section in the past. I remember every month reading comments on the previous month’s articles in magazines.

The jillion memoirs being written by former Condé Nast editors & writers doesn’t help. “I was paid high six figures to take 60 Vicodin a day, nap in my office and take company Lincoln town cars to buy heroin” is something people suspected about these smug NY editors all along.

by Anonymousreply 1February 13, 2020 4:50 AM

Here's the NY Times article on the Details editor. It's just so staggering the Newhouse family don't seem to care that their money is squandered.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2February 13, 2020 4:53 AM

Here’s an excerpt from an article about drugged out Condé Nast editor Dan Peres

Mr. Essex, the magazine’s former deputy, said it is not fair to portray Mr. Peres as having no involvement with the editorial product known as Details. [bold] “He could identify bizarre permutations of male behavior particularly at the epicenter of gay and straight,” Mr. Essex said. [/bold]

This is the kind of shit one expects from puffed up magazine culture vultures.

by Anonymousreply 3February 13, 2020 4:55 AM

All magazines are in trouble. It's because there's so much free information online.

by Anonymousreply 4February 13, 2020 4:56 AM

Read it in the Graydon days.

It’s all woke bullshit now - never buy it.

by Anonymousreply 5February 13, 2020 5:00 AM

They forget v fair appealed to bougie whites. Putting lena waithe in the cover was like thinking greenwich is interested in bridgeport.

by Anonymousreply 6February 13, 2020 5:04 AM

I am one of the bougie whites who hate the cheap paper and the bad photos. The shift to multiculturalism and ignoring investigative journalism is obvious and not positive. So funny because VF was a great institution during the G.Carter era. It has withered from attention. It perfectly mirrors the Oscars this year.

Done with both of them.

by Anonymousreply 7February 13, 2020 5:16 AM

They better get back to writing about the Kennedys, Marilyn Monroe, and the high drama of wealthy upper class WASPS of American high society again.

You know, the shit Dominick Dunne use to write about.

That's what their bougie white readers want.

by Anonymousreply 8February 13, 2020 5:20 AM

Companies apparently don’t need to make money any more.

by Anonymousreply 9February 13, 2020 5:24 AM

They could write about Oprah, King, Holder, and a whole bunch of rich, talented, good looking people of color.

It's called VANITY Fair FFS.

by Anonymousreply 10February 13, 2020 5:32 AM

Another awesome hiring decision by Conde Nast "artistic director" Anna Wintour, who has overseen:

- The replacement of the editor of Self and its redesign into Vogue Lite, and its folding within a year

- The replacement of the editor of Lucky and its redesign into Vogue Lite, and its folding within a year

- Details folding

- The gazillion-dollar canceled relaunch of style.com

- Teen Vogue folding in print

- A disastrous replacement of GQ's editor and its shift to woke/androgynous culture

And on and on.

She won't be satisfied until she runs the whole company into the ground!

by Anonymousreply 11February 13, 2020 5:35 AM

The internet killed everything.

by Anonymousreply 12February 13, 2020 5:40 AM

Welcome to the 21st century bitches.

Everything seems to be dystopian and bleak as fuck.

Woke culture only exists because of white supremacy and inequality etc.

So blame white society for what's taking place now.

Remember, inequality leads to wokeness.

by Anonymousreply 13February 13, 2020 5:47 AM

I miss the profiles of ancient Manhattan socialites and the latest high society scandal.

by Anonymousreply 14February 13, 2020 5:47 AM

r13 there are plenty of places to read about wokeness and all the injustices that have ever happened in the world. Vanity Fair was the only place you could read about Nan Kempner's haute couture collection or which international finance titan got shot by his mistress in his Saint Tropez penthouse. If we wanted to read about Lena Waithe we could go to Time or Newsweek.

by Anonymousreply 15February 13, 2020 5:50 AM

I'm hoping that VF and THEM get canceled utterly.

by Anonymousreply 16February 13, 2020 5:52 AM

or Babe Paley. Nobody did her better than VF...

by Anonymousreply 17February 13, 2020 5:52 AM

Why them crackers don't put my ass on da cover?!

by Anonymousreply 18February 13, 2020 5:55 AM

Vanity Fair did write about POC, but they were more United Nations/high fashion/mysterious emigre set.

It is more than possible to write about non-white people who inhabit the same milieu as the old school Vanity Fair subjects - but Lena Waithe is not it.

by Anonymousreply 19February 13, 2020 5:56 AM

CZ Guest, Lee Radziwill, Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis, Marilyn Monroe, Joan Crawford, the Kennedys, the old guard American WASP, old ass socialites of the 20th century, Andy Warhol, Dominick Dunne, any and everything Golden age of Hollywood, etc.

Is what Vanity Fair use to be about.

by Anonymousreply 20February 13, 2020 6:52 AM

I see Kim Kardashian finally got invited to the Vanity Fair Oscars after party. I remember years ago how they said Garden Carter would never invite the Kardashians to that party.

I see as of Sunday night, that's changed. That was like the last big party she finally got invited to.

They have finally legitimized that skank.

When is that asteroid going to hit earth again?

by Anonymousreply 21February 13, 2020 6:56 AM

Wasn't it Anna Wintour who decided to give VF to Radhika Jones, and who dreamed up the creation of Them?

by Anonymousreply 22February 13, 2020 7:03 AM

Yes, R22

by Anonymousreply 23February 13, 2020 7:14 AM

I love Vanity Fair. I hope it doesn't go away.

by Anonymousreply 24February 13, 2020 7:17 AM

Town & Country is the new VF (without all the WORDS) .

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 25February 13, 2020 7:38 AM

r21, you mean Garden Crater?

by Anonymousreply 26February 13, 2020 7:51 AM

How doesn’t the advertising alone pay for the whole production, someone must be doing something wrong? The paid subscriptions should just be the icing on the cake and pure profit.

by Anonymousreply 27February 13, 2020 8:00 AM

[quote]great institution during the G.Carter era.

No, that was all Tina. It was Graydon who ossified it with the endless Kennedy and Old Hollywood shit.

Wintour is a shit managing director and Them has been a pet project of hers which its is why it hasn’t yet been cancelled. The failure of Them and Vanity Fair are directly due to their editors.

It’s amazing that the current Vanity Fair editor — whatever her fucking name is — is repeating the mistakes of the first editor before Tina rescued it. He featured endless literary farts no one cared about. New editor does the same but this time its woke farts and diversity figures no one cares about. Ironically the Spanish and Italian Vanity Fairs know their market better, and are more likeTina’s Vanity Fair — full of decadent aristocrats and other such wacky engaging stuff. The critical mistake is the FUN has gone out of the magazine. This editor has no concept of “Let’shave a maarvelous party”, and how to mix it up. Essentially she’s intensely bourgeois, and that VF should never be.,

by Anonymousreply 28February 13, 2020 10:07 AM

I subscribed for decades. Then, when the new editor took over, each issue went directly into the trashcan. Mercifully, my subscription ran out....though VF, in all its tacky tiredness, still arrives each month.

by Anonymousreply 29February 13, 2020 10:26 AM

Subscribed for many years, cancelled when that awful new editor replaced Graydon. AND their redesign of the magazine is AWFUL, it looks like any other rag on the newsstand. This magazine just needs to DIE already.

by Anonymousreply 30February 13, 2020 10:31 AM

The magazine changed because we changed.

I worked in a well known magazine that caters to people with money. The people hired in spend cash like VF, because people that work in this particular industry are at work 12-16 per day. No joke. So they managed to create a social life, into their job.

They fly to meetings to meet with so and so, cruises, working vacations in Greece, best restaurants in town, etc.

Then... the age of the internet came in, and everyone wanted to do everything online, including their readership. Then, the millennials came in, and that was a wrap. Gen Z is just hammering in the last nails.

The previous business and content models no longer work. People have curated their necessary content via their RSS feeds, and it comes from dozens or more sources, and in order to grow readership, a magazine has to beat the WaPo and NYT with daily and fresh content. It can’t, because a monthly publication isn’t designed to work that way, yet the new readership, is.

It was fun while it lasted, and I’m glad I got in there in the 90s, stayed a while, and decided that living in airports with my boss, and becoming her BFF, wasn’t a meaningful life to me at that time.

This was pretty much unavoidable, and it’s happening across all sectors, and affecting different industries, in different ways, for pretty much the same reason: people have changed because of technology, and that has changed the way they spend their money, and why.

by Anonymousreply 31February 13, 2020 11:18 AM

Vanity Fair was of its time. It captured the superficial, silly moods of the 1980s and 1990s because it was equally superficial and silly. But we don't live in those years any more. The world is more serious, our problems greater. Idiotic fluff produced by editors and writers who seldom leave Manhattan and whose idea of culture is still Woody Allen and Jonathan Franzen are of a bygone era.

by Anonymousreply 32February 13, 2020 11:41 AM

There remains a place, and there will always remain a place for a magazine that can bottle high society. And magazines can still be revived by talented editors. It was the makeover of the fusty Hollywood Reporter into the glitzy must-read industry rag it is today that made Conde Nast want its editor for VF. They couldn’t afford her so settled for what they got — and the disaster that resulted.

by Anonymousreply 33February 13, 2020 11:53 AM

To be fair, which magazine is thriving?

by Anonymousreply 34February 13, 2020 12:06 PM

OK, so Which magazine is thriving, but Them is not?

by Anonymousreply 35February 13, 2020 12:08 PM

Look at the current VF cover, the Hollywood issue. Dreary orangey tones and two of the three cover subjects are Renee Zellwegger and Jennifer Lopez. Is there anyone more boring or overexposed than Lopez? It's a pretty thin issue, too. "Hollywood" used to be thick and chock-full of interesting articles about old stars and new. Not anymore.

by Anonymousreply 36February 13, 2020 12:16 PM

I think Vanity Fair can reconfigure themself into something like The Daily Beast, but there is little need for the print magazine anymore. Look at the Hollywood issue, there is no place for it. It used to be a novelty because all the celebrities were in one place. Now celebrities are everyplace all the time thanks to social media.

by Anonymousreply 37February 13, 2020 12:21 PM

The supposed Hollywood Issue was the last straw, three random stars presented in the most unattractive way possible. Yes, the decision to hire the new editor was Anna’s but New Yorker editor David Remnick also had a huge hand in and is still supporting her. What I have never understood it that Radhika Jones came from a background as a managing editor. Anyone who has ever worked at a publication knows that ME’s are the people who make the trains run on time, ie enforce deadlines. They are not the conceptual or grand concept types.

by Anonymousreply 38February 13, 2020 12:29 PM

It died with Dominick Dunne

by Anonymousreply 39February 13, 2020 12:30 PM

I recently subscribed to VF because it was quite cheap ($8 for a year) and it's mostly fluff, but have never seen anything even close to "woke bullshit" in it. Honestly, I don't know what half of you are talking about with that claim, you say it about the oddest things.

by Anonymousreply 40February 13, 2020 12:33 PM

[quote]three random stars

Eddie Murphy, Renee Zellweger and Jennifer Lopez are random? They were all in very well-received movies. Critics LOVED all three of their films. It's a terrible photo shoot, whoever came up with it should be fired post haste, but they weren't random stars.

by Anonymousreply 41February 13, 2020 12:35 PM

[quote]People have curated their necessary content via their RSS feeds

Hmm, no, not for a good decade or so.

by Anonymousreply 42February 13, 2020 12:37 PM

Well, print magazines in general are going away. But the Tina Brown years were the absolutely heyday of VF, glamorous and fun, I devoured every issue. The covers I see at the supermarket checkout these days look kind of solemn.

by Anonymousreply 43February 13, 2020 12:39 PM

R41 i meant randomly chosen, as well as the shockingly bad photos.

by Anonymousreply 44February 13, 2020 12:42 PM

I miss the Dominick Dunn and Chris Hitchens days. Hollywood gossip and bitchy snark with a cup of tea. Throw in random articles about murder or intrigue in The Hamptons or CT and I'd be in heaven for a couple of hours. My late mum would come and visit for a few weeks and I'd save my copies for her to read with her coffee and cigarette.

by Anonymousreply 45February 13, 2020 12:43 PM

It’s a shadow of its former self and seems to be edited now by a bunch of basic bitches. I used to love Dominick Dunne. In general, VF would always have a meaty, gripping true-crime story or in-depth investigation of some sordid family or affair. And the writing was actually quite good. Now, anytime I read it, I hear vocal fry in my head.

Horrible, shitty magazine that needs to go die ASAP...at least in its current form.

by Anonymousreply 46February 13, 2020 12:45 PM

Their RSS feeds?

*rolls eyes*

by Anonymousreply 47February 13, 2020 12:47 PM

[quote] Look at the Hollywood issue, there is no place for it. It used to be a novelty because all the celebrities were in one place. Now celebrities are everyplace all the time thanks to social media.

Nailed it. Which is why these magazines are passé, same with award shows like the Oscars and the Grammys. Social media killed my interest in many celebrities. No more mystery, no more excitement because they're everywhere all the time so why should I pay or sit through a 3 hour show to see them when they're already everywhere anyway.

by Anonymousreply 48February 13, 2020 12:48 PM

[quote] i meant randomly chosen

They were going for actors making comebacks, though. It wasn't random.

by Anonymousreply 49February 13, 2020 12:59 PM

The criticisms of the magazine's content have been addressed in other posts. The current layout of the magazine is problematic, at least for me. I simply cannot read it.

by Anonymousreply 50February 13, 2020 1:06 PM

[quote] A disastrous replacement of GQ's editor and its shift to woke/androgynous culture

Has GQ got woke too? That will end in tears.

by Anonymousreply 51February 13, 2020 1:34 PM

[quote]Vanity Fair was the only place you could read about Nan Kempner's haute couture collection or which international finance titan got shot by his mistress in his Saint Tropez penthouse.

Yes, but about 12 paragraphs in and those stories went from fun to dreary filler that hopped pages more often than a rabbit.

by Anonymousreply 52February 13, 2020 2:20 PM

During the Tina years it was almost an accessory... it looked good (if any bullshit stuff like that really looks good) to read it in public or have it on your coffee table. The Graydon years weren't bad but it lost a bit of something. I don't agree print needs to die, but it is unwell. A really smart but accessible magazine could thrive.

by Anonymousreply 53February 13, 2020 2:26 PM

Graydon seemed to be a little too enthralled with celebrities, maybe wanted to be one himself. I never liked how he went from brutally mocking celebs in Spy to kissing their asses in VF. He reminds me of Howard Stern in that regard. How's Graydon's little newsletter doing, anyway?

by Anonymousreply 54February 13, 2020 2:45 PM

How can Lopez be featured on a comeback cover when she's never gone away?

And the only people who thought she was Oscar-worthy for that dumpster movie were her many publicists.

by Anonymousreply 55February 13, 2020 3:14 PM

Jennifer was busy doing other things for several years. I think they mean a comeback in the Movies.

by Anonymousreply 56February 13, 2020 3:18 PM

For decades, it was very rare for Vanity Fair to feature a POC on its cover. But it frequently featured white nobodies.

RIP

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 57February 13, 2020 3:30 PM

I somehow ended up with two subscriptions, so for a couple of years I received two copies at a time. I'd give one away to co-workers, but now no one wants my spare. I barely want my own copy. It's dull.

by Anonymousreply 58February 13, 2020 3:36 PM

R9, they do, but they don't need to sell good products anymore; they can survive by financial engineering bs alone, you know... tax dodging, investing in dodgy financial instruments to keep shareholders happy with their dividends and all that jazz

by Anonymousreply 59February 13, 2020 3:43 PM

R12, it really didn't. As a reader I want access to certain worlds, the internet doesn't give you that. Magazines/newspapers do, when they know what they are doing. Look at the Financial Times.

by Anonymousreply 60February 13, 2020 3:47 PM

[quote] Ironically the Spanish and Italian Vanity Fairs know their market better, and are more likeTina’s Vanity Fair

Spot on

by Anonymousreply 61February 13, 2020 3:53 PM

R42, tech savvy consumers who don’t want to procure content from twitter trends and feeds, or similar, continue to use RSS aggregators.

Even if it’s not RSS, which admittedly, was the incorrect description of aggregation procurement and distribution, aggregation is STILL the easiest and most efficient way to access information in real time, or to receive it on as narrowly as possible, based on real timelines, from event to reporting of event. And the problem with using walked aggregators, such as Twitter, is that depending on how savvy the user is, when it comes to identifying trustworthy sources, the information they receive, may not have any verification as correct information, or it can be constructed into narratives that are not aligned with facts, as much as editorial opinion.The Cambridge Analytica case is a prime example of this.

That said, receiving information regarding fashion, media, film, art, literature, music, contemporary politics, trends, who’s who, etc., is information based on reaching specific market demographics, however, companies like Condé Nast, are finding it increasingly hard to maintain profits with digital advertising models, because of Twitter, Google, Facebook, and aggregation apps, such as Feedly, hence, my original points still stand, being that I’ve cleared up semantics for my argument.

Thanks. 😘

by Anonymousreply 62February 13, 2020 3:53 PM

Vanity Fair, please give these white people back their Aristocratic Wasp, high society socialite high drama, sprinkled with Golden age of Hollywood tales Vanity Fair back.

Please, their about to have a dame nervous breakdown.

They see one black lesbian on the cover of the magazine, and it's the end if the fucking world.

That's white society for you.

by Anonymousreply 63February 13, 2020 3:55 PM

So how is Wintour keeping her power if she's fucked up so much? Is she fucking a Newhouse or are they just scared if they don't give her everything she wants she'll leave to join a competitor?

by Anonymousreply 64February 13, 2020 3:56 PM

R37, you don't understand. I want to know what celebrities matter and what don't. I don't want to follow the celebs known and liked by the hoi polloi. VF is a gatekeeper or at least it used to be.

by Anonymousreply 65February 13, 2020 4:14 PM

R15, If we wanted to read about Lena Waithe we could go to People Magazine.

by Anonymousreply 66February 13, 2020 4:15 PM

[quote]tech savvy consumers who don’t want to procure content from twitter trends and feeds, or similar, continue to use RSS aggregators

You said in r31 that "people," as in the general public, have switched to RSS aggregators. That's not true. They rely on social media, Facebook mostly, to get their news; social media replaced RSS feeds for most people many years ago.

Your post at r62 is ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 67February 13, 2020 4:16 PM

R55 Don’t rewrite history to suit your biases. Hustlers was a lot of things but a dumpster of a movie.

It was a glossy, true-crime, women’s picture that received was very well received and earned $100 million domestically. Two of its three leads are pushing 40 and the third who has a decade on them got her best reviews in over 20 years for being hot and stacked and maternal and it’s a miracle it worked but it did.

by Anonymousreply 68February 13, 2020 4:23 PM

Right, r67. You are correct, hence, why I came back to clarify my incorrectly presented post, at r31, and was under the impression that I had done so, by clarification and an informal addendum, so to speak, with my post at r62.

R67, my clarification was aimed at my admission of you being correct in the general sense, correct in specific observations of news or editorial digital offerings, such as VF aggregation, and adding, that specifically, RSS aggregation is still used by persons such as myself, who don’t use Twitter or Facebook as tech platforms in order to procure content. That doesn’t make my post ridiculous. What it does make, is an opportunity for me to question if you’re just an asshole who is lashing out at some stranger on the internet for “reasons” (obviously unbeknownst to moi, therefore, I won’t venture to guess) or if you’re in a sour mood today, and a tad prickly, though you may be a decent guy, generally.

Fuck off, R67. After doing so, please forgive me for being a cunt to you, specifically for your ill guided response to me, because turnabout is fair play, YES?

It’s all water under the bridge, R67. Just relax, float, and go with it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 69February 13, 2020 4:43 PM

Just shut the fuck up, idiot at r69.

You are desperately uninformed.

by Anonymousreply 70February 13, 2020 4:45 PM

R64, she's been there for too long. She knows where all the skeletons are buried

by Anonymousreply 71February 13, 2020 4:52 PM

R13 You don’t get it. The woke pendulum will swing the other way and it will not be white people who will suffer. People like you, whose knee jerk cries of racism/whitey is evil to any and every conversation, are causing crisis fatigue. What is the long game for you, or have you not fought that far? Go read The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

by Anonymousreply 72February 13, 2020 4:53 PM

R25 - I agree. I used to look forward to the Hollywood issue. The latest one, I just skimmed through it quickly because there really wasn't anything interesting to read. Some of the Hollywood photos were reddish. Who the fuck thinks that is cool?

Meanwhile, Aerin Lauder dripping in jewels was on the cover of Town & Country. Inside were interesting articles about the Windsor woes, the Getty family and the missing Dubai princesses.

by Anonymousreply 73February 13, 2020 4:54 PM

R63, take literacy for a spin sometime!

by Anonymousreply 74February 13, 2020 4:59 PM

R73, I mean, but seriously is Aerin Lauder hip? Are the Windsors cool? And Dubai is so tacky.

That's why I just read the Financial Times nowadays, even their magazine supplements at the weekend say more interesting things.

by Anonymousreply 75February 13, 2020 5:06 PM

R7 You've summed it up perfectly. As a gayling living in poverty in a small town, I was obsessed with Vanity Fair. It was aspirational. Now, it's just like everything else.

by Anonymousreply 76February 13, 2020 5:12 PM

My sister is an academic specializing in film studies, and she subscribes to Vanity Fair specifically so that she has easy access to the articles on classic Hollywood in their archive, which aren't in any of the databases at her school. She says they produced better content in their heyday than any film journal. I believe her because remember those old Hollywood articles.

by Anonymousreply 77February 13, 2020 5:19 PM

[quote] They see one black lesbian on the cover of the magazine, and it's the end if the fucking world.

Nah. Janelle or Tessa or Lupita would’ve made for great cover stories. Lena Waite is humorless, scowling bore.

by Anonymousreply 78February 13, 2020 5:20 PM

The reasons I bought it in the 80s and 90s all seem to be gone. It was a great mix - gossip and scandal with one or two very well done pieces of journalism.

I started to subscribe again last summer as it was available through a special deal. This is what I can tell you about the magazine itself:

- It's supposed to be monthly, but VF has maybe managed to send us three issues in that time (about 8 months).

- The print is SO small that it's almost impossible to read.

- There's seldom any well done stories - it's mostly long celebrity profiles filled with softball questions.

by Anonymousreply 79February 13, 2020 5:25 PM

Even the popular annual Oscar “Hollywood issue” has become a dud.

by Anonymousreply 80February 13, 2020 5:27 PM

Dear black people, most white people did not grow up enslaving, segregating, or hating. Make sure you’re not keeping the imagined persecution (barring a small group of torch carrying assholes) alive just to fit some victim complex.

by Anonymousreply 81February 13, 2020 5:31 PM

May I remind people that this is all 'reportedly'. It's all according to this showbiz journalist, we don't know if it is true all the stuff he's saying. So calm down before jumping on the bangwagon

by Anonymousreply 82February 13, 2020 5:33 PM

R81, are you addressing the full black population from around the world. What?! Millions of people of different backgrounds, nationalities, professions, lifestyles, etc...?

What's wrong with you?

by Anonymousreply 83February 13, 2020 5:37 PM

Look at Miss R81. Who wants to get her a #NotAllWhitePeople T-shirt?

Oh, she's just precious.

by Anonymousreply 84February 13, 2020 5:46 PM

Is that “Dear White People” show addressing the full white population from around the world? No problems what that racist title? Asking for a friend. And joyfully pointing out inconsistencies in this insane era of wokeness where white = bad, everyone else = good.

by Anonymousreply 85February 13, 2020 5:50 PM

Is British TATLER a decent alternative?

by Anonymousreply 86February 13, 2020 5:53 PM

Wokeness is killing the publishing industry.

by Anonymousreply 87February 13, 2020 5:57 PM

The internet ruined everything because [in the worst version of the following] it gave everyone a voice and place to organize. Only in the era of wokeness, replace “voice” with “whiney voice.” Be the change. Stop complaining online.

by Anonymousreply 88February 13, 2020 6:00 PM

Woke SJWs don’t spend money.

That’s been established.

Catering to them = unemployment

by Anonymousreply 89February 13, 2020 6:00 PM

R86, too stale.

by Anonymousreply 90February 13, 2020 6:03 PM

R89, get your facts right.

Most of the 'woke SJWs' as you call them, are middle-class or upper-middle class youngsters. Mostly, because they are the only ones who have the (leisure) time to ponder on all the worlds' injustices (*sarcastic mode on*). The really disenfranchised are too busy struggling and hustling.

So kids like Greta Thunberg are the 'woke SJWs' wreaking havoc and being listened to. Those without privilege, don't have a voice.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 91February 13, 2020 6:12 PM

R88

[quote] replace “voice” with “ WHITE whiney voice.”

There, I've fixed it for you

by Anonymousreply 92February 13, 2020 6:14 PM

R87, no, this (see article) is what's killing the publishing industry. It's full of sad straight women who read Jane Austen novels all day, among other boring crap, and are intent on ramming other bland frothy nonsense down our throats. They have yet to understand that publishing is a BUSINESS

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 93February 13, 2020 6:21 PM

Um, it wasn’t white people whining about the frivolous (in the great scheme of things) and overstated #oscarssowhite meshugas. Until they had to or risk seeming racist. Which most aren’t.

by Anonymousreply 94February 13, 2020 6:22 PM

R93 Here's what's wrong in a nutshell. From the article:

"The percentages, while not exact, are proportional to how the majority of books look nowadays – predominately white. "

Yes indeed, books look predominately white because....well...guess what? The country is predominately white.

The fact that "predominantly white" is seen as some sort of problem is why VanityFair's core readership has left them.

by Anonymousreply 95February 13, 2020 6:29 PM

R95, the US is predominantly white? Not for very long. Why do you think all of you, the whites from the flyover states, are 'getting your knickers in a twist'? And voting for Trump? Because you want to restore your 'white supremacy', but it seems like it is not going to happen.

by Anonymousreply 96February 13, 2020 6:32 PM

[quote] the US is predominantly white? Not for very long. Why do you think all of you, the whites from the flyover states, are 'getting your knickers in a twist'? And voting for Trump? Because you want to restore your 'white supremacy', but it seems like it is not going to happen.

Dear, the US....where it counts...will remain predominantly white.

The industries, the banks, the big money....that is what rules and that power is not going anywhere.

Plus: the top 10% own everything. Those millions and billions will be inherited by their children

The newly minted millionaires and billionaires are probably 90 percent white with some Asians in the mix.

White wealth still rules. Money is what controls things. And it will continue to.

by Anonymousreply 97February 13, 2020 6:39 PM

If there’s a market for it, it will exist.

There’s not a market for wokeness peddled in Vanity Fair, so it’s going to dry up.

I don’t care for Town and Country because it’s SO obviously a publicity machine. You’ll never get the real dirt on anyone until they’re dead or broke. They’re all flattery.

by Anonymousreply 98February 13, 2020 6:44 PM

VF will be online only in five years time. Count on it.

by Anonymousreply 99February 13, 2020 6:48 PM

#BETAwardsSoBlack

Oh, wait.

by Anonymousreply 100February 13, 2020 6:48 PM

There was an attempt. It failed.

by Anonymousreply 101February 13, 2020 6:55 PM

All magazines will eventually be online, and newspapers will be dead. This decade is will probably be the last one for print media, as The Great Boomer Die-Off happens.

by Anonymousreply 102February 13, 2020 7:03 PM

I loved Graydon Carters VF. Loves the long form in-depth articles. The new editor is terrible, the magazine is terrible and most of the website is now behind a paywall as of the changeover.

It will die, and it should, but it’s sad.

by Anonymousreply 103February 13, 2020 7:17 PM

I was at the library recently and all the old boomers were sitting around reading print newspapers. It was weird.

by Anonymousreply 104February 13, 2020 7:21 PM

^^ my parents refuse to read the newspaper online, they have to have a print copy. Years ago, I showed them how to read everything on their ipads but they just couldn't get used to it. I guess after 60 years of doing something every day, you just can't switch over to a new method.

by Anonymousreply 105February 13, 2020 7:26 PM

I read VF magazine and was a subscriber for years. I would look forward to the next issue every month like Christmas. Not no more.

by Anonymousreply 106February 13, 2020 7:28 PM

I bet Kevin Sessums is clucking into his Meth pipe!

by Anonymousreply 107February 13, 2020 7:49 PM

VF was such a great read while traveling on a plane or a train. You could just bury yourself in it.

by Anonymousreply 108February 13, 2020 7:49 PM

R97, not so fast...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 109February 13, 2020 7:51 PM

R85 Well according to History, White people are bad. I mean, the History of whites in America backs that claim up pretty well.

They haven't exactly been angels.

Just saying.

by Anonymousreply 110February 13, 2020 7:55 PM

R97 that's what you think, but China owns you. Why do you think for the first time they decided to give "Parasite" a best film award? The Asians are coming, US is in clear decline and the media industry, including publishing is just a reflection of this.

by Anonymousreply 111February 13, 2020 7:55 PM

R111 That was an affirmative action award.

Everyone knows this.

by Anonymousreply 112February 13, 2020 7:57 PM

According to whites, anything none whites get is considered affirmative action.

Only whites achieve things on merit. No one else can.

That's how whites think unfortunately.

by Anonymousreply 113February 13, 2020 7:59 PM

Oprah is a media mogul. Why doesn’t SHE publish a magazine for people who are interested in high society society and woke culture?

Hmmm. Maybe because she knows that people DON’T WANT THAT.

She could publish a magazine for black high society, though. Someone should ask her why she doesn’t.

by Anonymousreply 114February 13, 2020 8:00 PM

Oprah isn't superficial in the way Vanity Fair is. Oprah is more about inspirational stories, and journeys to spiritual awakenings and living your best life.

Which is exactly what you get in her O Magazine.

by Anonymousreply 115February 13, 2020 8:04 PM

[quote] It's all according to this showbiz journalist, we don't know if it is true all the stuff he's saying

There are at least 20 tell-all’s in the works for people who worked at Condé Nast & they’ve all been excerpted. Try reading The NY Times article upthread quoting those books & quoting the responses to those quotes by people who worked with the tell-all authors.

by Anonymousreply 116February 13, 2020 8:15 PM

[quote]Oprah isn't superficial in the way Vanity Fair is. Oprah is more about inspirational stories, and journeys to spiritual awakenings and living your best life.

And cake. And pie.

by Anonymousreply 117February 13, 2020 8:25 PM

Dear Caucasians (R82, talking to you!):

African Americans know that emancipation took place hundreds of years ago. They also know that unfortunately, some people didn’t get the memo. Then, Jim Crow was abolished in the South, and again, white Americans didn’t get the memo.

The resistance was bloody- literally. White Americans did everything from passing laws that are today known as “Charter Schools” , in order to continue to segregate African American children, from white, American children. Charter school legislation has changed demonstrably, from state, to county, city, etc., but today, in 2020, Betsy DeVoss has violated orders from a federal court, in order to test America’s legal system, with the desired outcome of repealing legislation which protects and reviews for profit, and private schools and their unfair business practices, when granting loans to low income and medium income families. She has also helmed the closure of public schools that have larger percentages of minority students, in order to create voucher programs that basically, allow for segregation, and the schools that do not close, will suffer, due to the unfair practices of redistricting counties, in favor of controlling funding for poor students, which affects their lunch programs, the books they receive, the pay the teachers are offered, and therefore, force schools in these poorly funded districts, to slash more programs, than they already have. These practices yield more votes for the GOO party candidate disproportionately, from towns, cities, counties, state governments, all the way to Congress and the Senate., which ultimately intercepts with the ability for African Americans to have DNC representation, across the board.

Currently, I am living in the South. I can attest the following to you: the white population here in my county, and surrounding counties, are predominantly white. I grew up and have lived in areas that are predominantly white, in major, metropolitan cities. The way that I am treated here in the South, by white men and women, is profoundly different, than my treatment from Caucasians in metropolitan cities.

Today, for example: I went shopping. I decided to purchase a bunch of stuff that I genuinely need, and stuff that I want. I didn’t interact with anyone in the store, because I was focused on getting in, and out. Before I knew it, my cart was pretty packed, and as I walked around, looking at my list, and procuring the stuff I needed, white women spoke rudely to me, acted as if though our same, exact actions, of pushing our carts around each other, was a courtesy which they were extending to me, rather than a service offered by a privately owned department store, in a state where segregation was found unconstitutional, decades ago. Sales clerks followed me around as I shopped. As I guided my cart through aisles, women spoke curtly to me, as if I had encroached on their personal space (I hadn’t), and did so, btw, before I was anywhere near them, yet slowly advancing forward. The more items I had in my cart, the more aggressive these total strangers became. When I finally went to purchase my items, the sales girl (white) who had been so chatty and friendly with the previous white woman at the cashier, suddenly became sullen, spoke sharply to me, was curt, and the entire interaction was sadly, really negative.

I am highly observant. As I became increasingly aware of the micro, passive aggression directed at me, I noticed that it was also being directed at other minority shoppers, in the store. Thankfully, I didn’t have horns and a tail that everyone but me could see, and to my Jewish friends on here, please note that I understand the origins of that description, and am using it in solidarity with you, to describe similar treatment of American minorities in America, as Jews too, experienced and still do, all over the world.

by Anonymousreply 118February 13, 2020 8:30 PM

What some of you here just do not seem to understand, is that in MANY cities across America, it doesn’t matter that a black or Hispanic American is well educated, has enough money to shop and purchase shit without credit, has little debt, owns their car outright, is married to their spouse, who is the father of their children, makes over 100K/annum, has savings, owns their own home, and investment properties, volunteers in their community, and succeeds at obtaining the “American Dream”, because the white people who tell you that they aren’t racists, and who claim that everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, ABSOLUTELY DESPISE SEEING AFRICAN AMERICANS, HISPANIC AMERICANS, MUSLIM AMERICANS, AND EVEN JEWISH AMERICANS, DOING EXACTLY JUST THAT, AND DOING IT AS WELL AS THEY DO, OR BETTER.

We do not want to be victims, but the problem is, that White Americans would rather us be victims, than to succeed and possibly surpass them. They want us to know our place, and when we refuse, they cunningly turn the tables on us, and take our place, claiming reverse racism, crying foul at anyone who challenges their deep need for racial superiority, and refuse to admit that their privilege only exists, because of the poverty and lack of privileges normally inaccessible to those of color. Someone HAS to be less than them, in order for them to be OK. What would they do, without their whipping dog? Whip themselves? Nope. They do what they have always done, vote against even their own interests, just to make sure that the interests of minorities are denied, ignored, unfairly taxed, disproportionately incarcerated, undereducated, underfed, and overlooked. That’s reality in America, and if you cannot recognize it, it’s because you don’t have to.

Lucky you.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 119February 13, 2020 8:32 PM

R118 and R119, was meant for R81.

Apologies to R82

by Anonymousreply 120February 13, 2020 8:34 PM

That's a lovely story. But it has nothing to do with Vanity Fair or the decline of print media.

by Anonymousreply 121February 13, 2020 8:38 PM

R119 I'd only ask if it's ok to blame every one of us or rather blame those who impose it? What exactly is it you think should be done to solve racism?

by Anonymousreply 122February 13, 2020 8:46 PM

Yeah, I am aware of this, which is why I specifically addressed R81, who first threw the gauntlet, in a thread that has nothing to do with VF.

See how that works?

Anyhow, a prime example of the attitudes I myself, have encountered in the South, in an area where most people can afford to buy their own health insurance, or are provided health insurance via their employer, and overwhelmingly own their own homes, and live pretty darn well.

It doesn’t matter. It’s the South, and this attitude envelops it, and permeates through the lives of the average, white voters who live here.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 123February 13, 2020 8:47 PM

The quality of the magazine has really gone down. There's nothing worth reading in it. It's nothing but glossy pictures and mindless articles about famous, fabulously wealthy people. There used to be good true crime features (there were good articles about subjects like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer and Jeffrey MacDonald) but they don't do those anymore. I had a subscription to it for a long time but when it runs out I'm not going to renew it. It's just not worth reading; that's the long and the short of it.

by Anonymousreply 124February 13, 2020 8:49 PM

R118 and R119, You said it. You really got me at the part about whites needing someone to feel racially superior to.

That's it. They absolutely need someone to feel superior to, because if they didn't then what's the point of being white is how they see it.

Everyone can't be on their level, they don't want that. If someone whose none white is on their lever or doing better, they feel less then.

LBJ (who was also a racist) said it best. They have to have someone to look down on. And that's always been true. It's what America is built on.

by Anonymousreply 125February 13, 2020 8:49 PM

Speaking of magazines, do people read Vogue anymore either?

by Anonymousreply 126February 13, 2020 8:52 PM

R122, racism, or the way that it segregated races and infringed upon the Civil Rights Act, has already been taken care of. So I am good with that.

Why don’t YOU ask yourself that question, and answer me with what you came up with. You see, I fully understand that individuals who are racist, cannot have their racism legislated. So when you asked me that question, it’s kinda misdirected, because I am fortunately, not a racist.

The problem is that every time this is pointed out, the impulse response range from: “I’m not a racist”, to, “What more do THEY want?” or as you asked, “What do you, the non-racist minority, think is the solution?”

Why am I required to answer a question, that isn’t a question that I can answer effectively, being that I am not a white American, who is also a racist?

We are willing to hear you out, but the answers to your question, and others, must be answered by white, racist Americans, not by the people they discriminate against socially, because they cannot do so, legally., yet continue to try, hence Trump and Miss Betsy DeVos.

by Anonymousreply 127February 13, 2020 8:58 PM

[quote] Thankfully, I didn’t have horns and a tail that everyone but me could see, and to my Jewish friends on here, please note that I understand the origins of that description

That description originated in Iran (Persia). In an agrarian & animal husbandry culture, putting things on a human that were from animals was a way to signify the supernatural. Many religious ceremonies involved dressing as animals & having humans play “spirits” that had wings, tails, horns. “Angels” were associated with good, white doves. Devils were black or red; some were winged, some had cloven hooves, horns and tails. They were ugly with sharp chins, long noses & warts arising on their faces. They often had clawed hands. Witches had some of the same characteristics as devils, since witches were evil.

Satan, the Devil did not arise from antisemitism and wasn’t made to look “like a Jew” as has been claimed, unless someone has ever seen a Jew who looks like a devil - I haven’t. The devil was supernatural, just like the witch. The devil was evil, just like the witch. The devil was ugly, with warts, a sharp chin, long nose and claw-like fingers, just like the witch. The devil was red or black, the witch was red, yellow or green.

And sadly, some people actually grow a horn. It’s a dermatological condition & it afflicts mostly older women, who are the most vulnerable & unvalued in many societies. Ancient people took this as a sign that one had been cavorting with demons or having unnatural relations with animals.

The animalistic devil comes from pre-Islamic Middle East societies and predates European antisemitism by thousands of years.

by Anonymousreply 128February 13, 2020 8:58 PM

WTF does any of this have to do with Vanity Fair? The quality of DL posters has really gone down.

by Anonymousreply 129February 13, 2020 9:02 PM

I haven't read it for a very long time. I used to subscribe pre-internet and would look forward to getting it every month. I would read it cover-to-cover.

by Anonymousreply 130February 13, 2020 9:06 PM

R128, thank you. I was not aware of this, and I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to teach me something I did not previously know.

I genuinely mean that. No snark.

😘

by Anonymousreply 131February 13, 2020 9:13 PM

R125, your pointing out LBJ’s racism is a PERFECTLY apt and succinct example of the cognitive dissonance experienced by white Americans who overwhelmingly reside and vote in “Trump Country”.

Thank you. You summed it up really well, and did so without two or more posts.

LOL! 😘

by Anonymousreply 132February 13, 2020 9:16 PM

Will you fucking LSA idiots please shut the fuck up?

by Anonymousreply 133February 13, 2020 9:18 PM

Editors at that level need to have personality. Tina, Anna, Ingrid, Carter, Shawn, Epstein. It's like the impresarios of great cultural houses or fashion designers.

by Anonymousreply 134February 13, 2020 9:20 PM

R133 No you can leave this thread. The fact that you think we should shut up says a lot about the conversation on this thread.

It means that it's needed, and that we must be hitting a nerve with you.

Go watch fox news, I'm sure that'll make you feel better.

Good luck with that hatred you harbor. Maybe you can go talk to Rush Limbaugh.

by Anonymousreply 135February 13, 2020 9:27 PM

R133 had better step on it, R135, because Mr. Limbaugh himself, has stepped on the proverbial banana peel, and will soon be joining it as a bio-degradable item (well, banana peels don’t have bones-but you know what I mean).

by Anonymousreply 136February 13, 2020 9:32 PM

Word at Conde is that Radhika’s days are numbered. It’s widely accepted that she was a total miscast. Tina and Graydon were star fucking gadabouts who wanted to be everywhere, every night. Radhika is a schoolmarm. She has a couple sycophants on her team but she’s lost the confidence of anyone who matters at the company. They will need to invest in a star hire to try to restore VF to its luster. No small task in the garbage dumpster fire that is media today.

by Anonymousreply 137February 13, 2020 9:33 PM

Yeah, the Radhika VF is so boring. I stopped even looking at it at the newstands to see if I wanted to buy it.

R96, the Hispanic birth rate has fallen off the cliff, so actually the white majority is sticking around for the time being as white babies are, again, making up the majority of births. Hispanic fertility rates are still higher than everyone else's, but not by much and everyone's fertility rate is below replacement rates. A good thing, IMO, there are too many of us for the planet.

The publishing industry's demographics looks like those of college-educated America.

by Anonymousreply 138February 13, 2020 10:35 PM

[quote]White Americans would rather....

R119 Funny how you speak of a whole group of people in sweeping generalities.

Well, don't worry. So do I.

by Anonymousreply 139February 13, 2020 10:35 PM

Oh, R139, i don’t give a flying fuck. Honestly. You? You’re a) invisible to me, b) a cage rattler, c) in case no one told you? You’re the one in the cage.

LOL.

Freakin’ goober, thinks I’m actually invested in his outrage & indignation. Man, I got bills to pay, & love to share, and kisses to give, & brown eyes to look into. Busy looking for th-A-t life. Please, feel free to live whatever yours is, kid.

by Anonymousreply 140February 13, 2020 11:06 PM

[quote]Oh, [R139], i don’t give a flying fuck

Nor do I and neither do the rest us care about your inane posts, your personal problems and your silly lecturing.

by Anonymousreply 141February 13, 2020 11:18 PM

r137 you've summed it up. Radhika was a total misfire.

by Anonymousreply 142February 13, 2020 11:25 PM

Amen, R141. And she's a wordy windbag too.

by Anonymousreply 143February 13, 2020 11:27 PM

The old VF was well-written, well-researched and dished. It was journalism, and the writers had sources. Nobody did rich people murders like VF. I miss it. I also miss Gawker. And the old New Yorker with super-long articles that had columns for days.

by Anonymousreply 144February 14, 2020 12:09 AM

R134 Anna has a personality?

by Anonymousreply 145February 14, 2020 12:10 AM

R28) Yes! The Tina VF was the best! I enjoyed SPY Magazine when Graydon Carter was at the helm. It was witty and irreverent and did not bow to celebrity. Once GC went to VF, he brought all of the trendy self-conscious dorkiness of the Spy layout but left behind the irreverence and became the ultimate suck-up. The magazine has been going downhill for years.

by Anonymousreply 146February 14, 2020 12:10 AM

I still like the New Yorker. It was getting a little uber-woke for a while, but it retains a commitment to journalism that kept it from going over the cliff. David Remnick has been a good editor for it--way better than Tina Brown was, but Brown was Vanity Fair's best editor.

Anna Wintour was an interesting editor for Vogue early on, but she fell out of touch with the zeitgeist 20 years ago. Vogue was already getting a bit tired, but between the Kartrashians and the need-to-be-woke, it's gotten to be tedious to read.

I need fun in my magazines. The Hollywood Reporter is a trade rag, but it's a fun read.

by Anonymousreply 147February 14, 2020 12:21 AM

like most mags now, they get their $ from their online version of the mag ya dum shit

its thriving on line ya fuk

by Anonymousreply 148February 14, 2020 12:33 AM

R140 sounds like that black crackhead from Kansas City who infested the board for a while.

by Anonymousreply 149February 14, 2020 12:37 AM

[quote] everyone's fertility rate is below replacement rates. A good thing, IMO, there are too many of us for the planet.

They’ll just replace everyone with immigrants from 3rd World countries. People in those places don’t use birth control.

by Anonymousreply 150February 14, 2020 12:41 AM

As an outside observer, I could have told you that the managing editor for the New York Times books imprint was a total miscast for editor of Vanity Fair.

I was shocked Janice Min didn't get the job after reinventing the Hollywood Reporter with buzzy longform pieces, lush photo shoots and a surging website. That's the exact skill set VF needed.

How much salary did she require? Radhika is making 500k. Conde Nast tried to save money, but I would guess they've lost the difference between that and Graydon Carter's old salary ($3 million/yr) many times over on this experiment in dullness.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 151February 14, 2020 12:50 AM

[QUOTE]Woke SJWs don’t spend money.

They do seem to spend money on green and pink hair die, though

by Anonymousreply 152February 14, 2020 1:02 AM

I don't recall VF ever profiling Kid Rock or other redneck icons (unless there was a high society/murder/fraud angle.) By the same token (hee!), I don't expect to read about the POC versions of redneck celebrities in VF. I welcome and am thrilled to read about POC elite and POC elite entertainers. That is what VF is about: a glimpse into the lives of the elite. Profiles of O, Gayle, Barack, Michelle, Viola Davis, Taraji, Justice Sotomayor? Bring it on!

by Anonymousreply 153February 14, 2020 1:06 AM

It's been total shit for awhile. I remember one of their music issues a few years ago, where they had personal statements from the different editors who worked on it. One basic bitch was like: "This was has been such an education. I learned who Massive Attack is!"

Umm, excuse me - but shouldn't editors be hired BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE SHIT THEY ARE EDITING?!

Gah.

by Anonymousreply 154February 14, 2020 1:18 AM

Why hasn't Anna Wintour been retired already? What is she now, 75?

by Anonymousreply 155February 14, 2020 1:20 AM

Conde Nast is a disaster. They need to be working double-time to launch new initiatives to compensate for the death of print, but they just seem to be cost-cutting and continuing their spiral.

The super-high-paid editors of VF, Glamour and GQ all got pushed out last year because Conde lost something like $120 million.

I wonder what their losses were for 2019.

by Anonymousreply 156February 14, 2020 1:21 AM

Publishers don't have the $$$ and perks for editors like they used to. The Oompa-Loompa PEOPLE editor Jess Cagle resigned a year or two ago because of some bullshit about not having a private jet and big spending account anymore.

by Anonymousreply 157February 14, 2020 1:24 AM

"Woke SJWs don’t spend money."

-"They do seem to spend money on green and pink hair die, though"

And don't forget all the money spent for ugly tattoos.

by Anonymousreply 158February 14, 2020 1:25 AM

[quote]Conde Nast is a disaster.

At this point you have to wonder, who will die first -- Anna or Conde Nast?

by Anonymousreply 159February 14, 2020 1:33 AM

I remember some awful puff piece they did on Kate Hudson; the headline on the cover trumpeted: "Golden Girl: Kate Hudson Is Beautiful, Talented and Hollywood Royalty To Boot." The author of the article kisses her ass from here to kingdom come and is bowled over by her comeliness, commenting on her "perky breasts unfettered by underclothes" and the "rings on her pearly tipped toes." She also writes swooningly of Hudson's relationship with the truly hideous rock star Chris Robinson. Their first date went swimmingly; they were out window shopping and she admired a coat; he offered to buy it for her but she demurred: "It cost eight grand and it was only our first date." GAG. With articles like that it's no wonder VF had now become a total piece of shit.

by Anonymousreply 160February 14, 2020 1:56 AM

Vanity Fair articles are short and shallow. No depth,

by Anonymousreply 161February 14, 2020 2:07 AM

Vanity Fair was the New Yorker of pop culture, in that it did deep dives into celebrities, politicians, writers and socialites. Exposés of iconic figures and true crime came along with that, but it was always impeccably reported. So they had the best of both worlds—they got celebrity gawkers who came for the photos and interviews, and more serious types who were into the lost letters of JD Salinger or whatever.

There were frequent puff pieces on cover subjects, but as a subscriber you could accept them as a necessary evil because a) they were usually amusingly written and edited; and b) there would always be other satisfying pieces in any given issue.

Graydon Carter had run out of gas and needed to be replaced, and the whole thing needed to be rethought a bit, because the way we view celebrity has changed radically. But a well-done Vanity Fair could be more popular than ever, because there's so much celebrity material to contextualize and comment on.

But there used to be a joy in it and a POV. The new hire made a 180-degree shift when about 45 degrees was required. And now she's backtracking. It reads and looks like a cost-cut shadow of its old self.

I wonder if Anna Wintour hired the wrong person passive-aggressively to show her bosses what budget-slashing can do.

by Anonymousreply 162February 14, 2020 2:08 AM

One thing I hated about VF was that it stunk. Too many rip and smell perfume ads, all at war with each other. It was like Grandma's funeral in there.

by Anonymousreply 163February 14, 2020 2:13 AM

Kate Hudson has a kind of Russian look to her. My husband’s grandparents were Russian, so he finds Russian women creepy. They remind him of the Old World, the dour, unhappy old people who ate disgusting food and complained all the time. His mother had a miserable childhood & hated her mother.

He can’t stand to look at Kate Hudson. I hadn’t noticed, but he’s right. She does look kind of Russian/Eastern European. So weird because she’s only 1/4 Hungarian Jewish. It’s not like she’s 1/2 Russian or anything,

by Anonymousreply 164February 14, 2020 2:17 AM

R160 I wanted to read that interview so I Googled one of those quotes and only found another DL thread!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 165February 14, 2020 3:25 AM

R160 But... but... Graydon Carter...🙄Why is everyone pretending that this magazine hasn't largely been shit for at least 15-20 years? Radhika is just pounding the last few nails in the coffin.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 166February 14, 2020 3:29 AM

Seriously, could there be a magazine any worse than American Vogue? I mean, really? When is the last time anyone actually picked a copy of that up? AW ruined that one years ago.

by Anonymousreply 167February 14, 2020 4:17 AM

It reads and looks like a cost-cut shadow of its old self.

Perfectly said.

by Anonymousreply 168February 14, 2020 10:30 AM

It’s possible that Vanity Fair can be saved. The problem with Town and Country is that it’s so obviously a PR vehicle. They’ll never dish.

by Anonymousreply 169February 14, 2020 10:31 AM

R169 Maybe they need to spice things up with two magazines by combining them and spinning them off as Vanity Country and Town and Fair?

by Anonymousreply 170February 14, 2020 11:26 AM

[quote]Graydon Carter had run out of gas and needed to be replaced, and the whole thing needed to be rethought a bit, because the way we view celebrity has changed radically. But a well-done Vanity Fair could be more popular than ever, because there's so much celebrity material to contextualize and comment on.

I don't know. Everything is a landmine now. Cancel culture is what it's all about. Digging up dirt is finding out so and so wasn't "woke" enough 8 years ago or something. I think the times just aren't suited for what Vanity Fair has been for so long.

by Anonymousreply 171February 14, 2020 11:49 AM

R149, wow, I’d (happily) forgotten about the dreaded ‘Anonymous in Kansas City’! He did indeed infest DL for a while, and was a notorious thread hijacker/destroyer. Let’s hope he’s not back!

by Anonymousreply 172February 14, 2020 11:50 AM

R151 I forgot about Janice Min. You're right, she would have been perfect.

by Anonymousreply 173February 14, 2020 1:29 PM

They should replace her with Joan Juliet Buck.

by Anonymousreply 174February 14, 2020 2:32 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 175February 14, 2020 4:02 PM

R112: and ‘Moonlight’ is not?

by Anonymousreply 176February 14, 2020 7:56 PM

The New Yorker isn't much better. A bunch of elderly editors working on pieces designed to bore the world. Occasionally a terrific piece of reporting, maybe once a month at most, and otherwise a lot of nothing.

by Anonymousreply 177February 14, 2020 8:05 PM

^A-fucking-men. What a snooze fest that one is.

by Anonymousreply 178February 14, 2020 8:24 PM

Lena Waithe should never have been interviewed as she is TV. Imagine, some writer of Television being featured on the cover of VF, and so early in her career. Just not our area of interest....TV.

by Anonymousreply 179February 14, 2020 9:19 PM

I wouldn't have guessed that a thread about Vanity Fair magazine would get 180 replies in two days. Obviously some people are still reading magazines.

(Oh and I think David Remnick has turned the New Yorker into the goddamned dullest magazine ever. No surprises whatsoever. William Shawn was the only one who knew how to run that magazine. Even now you can dig out an issue from 1967 or 1975 and there's still something fascinating in it. Remnick's issues are stale after three weeks.)

by Anonymousreply 180February 14, 2020 9:47 PM

In the good old days, the Will and Grace implosion and backstage Dra ma would have been a perfect VF story.

by Anonymousreply 181February 15, 2020 6:45 PM

[quote] I don't know. Everything is a landmine now. Cancel culture is what it's all about. Digging up dirt is finding out so and so wasn't "woke" enough 8 years ago or something. I think the times just aren't suited for what Vanity Fair has been for so long.

New York magazine is doing fine. There IS a world beyond "the woke wars" of Twitter.

by Anonymousreply 182February 15, 2020 6:49 PM

[quote] Obviously some people are still reading magazines.

Think of DL's demo.

This is the core magazine reading audience, VF in particular.

Many still mostly watch broadcast networks (versus Netflix et al) and participate in social media only grudgingly.

I suspect many DLers worked in and around the publishing and print advertising industries too, so the death of many magazines hit them hard.

Fascinating thread as a result.

by Anonymousreply 183February 15, 2020 6:54 PM

^^well outside of the pointless the detour into the usual whinging about race and all that

The magazine concept is not dead.

New York and The Atlantic figured out how to make it work digitally.

Politico and Axios are doing well.

The next decades will be all about being able to pivot and adapt, unpopular notions on DL

by Anonymousreply 184February 15, 2020 6:58 PM

Can’t wait for my subscription to end. Completely worthless magazine.

by Anonymousreply 185February 15, 2020 7:00 PM

I can’t wait until my subscription to this worthless rag is finished. Never again!

by Anonymousreply 186February 15, 2020 7:03 PM

Vanity Fair is the Hillary Clinton of magazines!

by Anonymousreply 187February 15, 2020 7:07 PM

[quote] The next decades will be all about being able to pivot and adapt, unpopular notions on DL

Exactly. The titles you listed are doing well. There is a shared delusion on DL that loudmouths on the left have tainted popular culture and cultural criticism. It's just not true.

by Anonymousreply 188February 15, 2020 7:09 PM

R188 But it is true Blanche. When teen vogue does an article, written by a gay man, telling teenage girls how to 'enjoy' anal sex, the left is fucking broken.

by Anonymousreply 189February 15, 2020 7:34 PM

Graydon Carter and Anna Wintour were the worst things to happen to Conde Nast. I was there.

by Anonymousreply 190February 15, 2020 7:43 PM

[quote]There is a shared delusion on DL that loudmouths on the left have tainted popular culture and cultural criticism. It's just not true.

Wrong. It is true.

It's a criticism that's held by many serious thinkers.

My gosh, speaking of "The Atlantic" ...that magazine has done countless articles on the subject.

by Anonymousreply 191February 15, 2020 8:24 PM

When I moved to Los Angeles in the early 90s for college, I loved VF. It seemed to capture that era of the city so well - esp the era of big-paid movie stars, like Julia Roberts getting $20 million a movie, Jim Carrey, so forth. The culture is so pluralistic now that VF just seems like a relic.

I must say I loved when they did deep dives on the making of 70s films, got everyone on the record about The Godfather or some such film. Really awesome stuff. Peter Biskind-type stuff. I just don't see it anymore.

Do any of you listed to "Little Gold Men," the VF awards podcast? I used to love it, but now even it, too, seems irrelevant. And Joanna Robinson's voice just grates on me, and Richard Lawson's snarkiness (which is supposed to be his intelligence?) got to me too. So I've backed off from it as well.

by Anonymousreply 192February 15, 2020 8:36 PM

[quote]must say I loved when they did deep dives on the making of 70s films

Remember their great piece on Michael Cimino?

That's the kind of stuff we want.

by Anonymousreply 193February 15, 2020 8:41 PM

The Cimino piece was great. Probably why I like The Hollywood Reporter--they don't do it often, but every now and then they'll dredge up someone who disappeared and you find out what happened to them.

I actually think Cancel Culture has peaked--it's so nonstop that it becomes hard to remember who was cancelled and for what. Trying to cancel JK Rowling did absolutely nothing to her book sales.

Cancel culture requires people to be afraid of the Twitter mob. If cancelling fails to work, then there's nothing left.

by Anonymousreply 194February 15, 2020 8:57 PM

Dan Peres was a real life Patsy Stone!

by Anonymousreply 195February 15, 2020 9:01 PM

The problem with CN is that they tried to pretend that digital wasn't happening and wouldn't invest in technology and processes that could have helped with the transition.

Easy example is how New York and The Atlantic roll out short topical pieces on a subject of interest that day, promote it on social media and email newsletters, use stock art, etc. It's easy to access their articles on mobile and they shifted to a model where you get X number of articles for free each month but then you need to subscribe.

CN kept trying to do make things like PDF-like magazine iPad apps happen, ignored social media, still operated on a system where all their writers had months to churn out long pieces about actors at time when no one cared much about actors any more since they were all over social media and anything you wanted to know about them you could find out on their Instagram and Twitter.

Seriously DLEGs, the fall of Conde Nast is going to be one hell of an HBS case study, a great lesson in what happens when you deal with the change around you by pretending it's not happening.

by Anonymousreply 196February 15, 2020 9:58 PM

Dan Peres just wrote an article for Men's Health describing how difficult it is for him as a suburban dad of three to stay sober amidst the barbecues and margarita parties common in his neighborhood. Boo fucking hoo. Like no one else abstains from alcohol there. Totally worthless.

by Anonymousreply 197February 15, 2020 11:15 PM

[QUOTE]all their writers had months to churn out long pieces about actors at time when no one cared much about actors any more since they were all over social media and anything you wanted to know about them you could find out on their Instagram and Twitter.

Do you actually think that actors, or anyone else, air their dirty laundry on Instagram and Twitter?

Social media is all about presenting an idealized image of oneself but the rosier the picture the darker the reality.

There's still plenty of dirt to be digged when it comes to celebrities and the public loves that shit.

by Anonymousreply 198February 15, 2020 11:17 PM

Radhika Jones:Vanity Fair :: Meghan Markle:British Royal Family

by Anonymousreply 199February 15, 2020 11:29 PM

R198 = unemployed former Condé Nast editor pitching stories to Buzzfeed

by Anonymousreply 200February 16, 2020 12:34 AM

r198 the VF cover stories on actresses and actors have always been puff pieces.

by Anonymousreply 201February 16, 2020 12:40 AM

R61, any time you have to post a three paragraph response to a one sentence comment, you are doing more harm than good to your own point of view. You didn’t say “aggregators” you said RSS feeds. If you had said Twitter there would have been no issue. You said RSS feeds. NOBODY from Gen Z is firing up a email client to subscribe to an RSS feed.

by Anonymousreply 202February 16, 2020 1:06 AM

[quote]And Joanna Robinson's voice just grates on me

Joanna Robinson is the epitome of frau. How she got a job at VF and not People or Buzzfeed is baffling.

Lawson seems a lost cause at this point. He’s turned into a SJW scold when he used to make fun of that shit.

by Anonymousreply 203February 16, 2020 1:36 AM

[quote]Do you actually think that actors, or anyone else, air their dirty laundry on Instagram and Twitter?

You're right R198 but actors don't need publications to reach the public anymore. If Rita Wilson wants you to know how she's doing after whatever recent incident she has been through she can pen an essay on instagram or Twitter. If an actor wants to come out they can just post a video and explain it themselves. Halle Berry obviously has her own photographer and photoshop editor on hand to capture her daily life.

[quote]The magazine concept is not dead.

It's not and the magazines you mentioned made it work. I'm also a fan of The Hollywood Reporter but they cover things that you don't really see anywhere else in a way only they can. (And I also read Deadline online.)

However, I'd say the kinds of things that people check out have changed. I don't need a fashion magazine to show me who is wearing what because I can totally see what everyone's Oscar looks were myself either through Twitter or a website dedicated to those things. If I want to read long form, thoughtful stories then I'd check out The Atlantic.

by Anonymousreply 204February 16, 2020 2:56 AM

[quote]There IS a world beyond "the woke wars" of Twitter.

The need to prove you are "woke" enough is all over the place not just twitter or the internet in general. Don't know what rock you have been sleeping under.

by Anonymousreply 205February 16, 2020 9:56 AM

R205, you are correct. My remedy for this is to keep my mouth shut and let everyone else do the talking. I don’t post anything to social media, nod my head in actual conversation and vent a bit to my spouse. Nobody, not once, has asked me what I think, so that’s good.

by Anonymousreply 206February 16, 2020 11:38 AM

The truth of the matter is that media companies, legacy or otherwise, still rely heavily on advertising revenue so even if a brand shifted to digital earlier than others (The Atlantic), it doesn’t mean they are impervious to the perilous state of business. Atlantic’s ad revenue growth has stalled quite dramatically and is now a down business. They don’t have the scale of Conde brands which is a problem since advertisers are now buying audiences, not brands. VF benefits from being bought as part of a bigger CN audience. Having said all that, Radhika has got to go.

by Anonymousreply 207February 16, 2020 12:06 PM

If they get rid of Radhika, they’re looking at a discrimination lawsuit. Guaranteed.

by Anonymousreply 208February 16, 2020 12:40 PM

R208- on what grounds? They can happily point to the editors of Allure, Teen Vogue and them to show how much they embrace women of color.

by Anonymousreply 209February 16, 2020 12:48 PM

R208, there doesn’t have to be any actual discrimination. Just a bunch of “microaggressions” will do.

Condé Nast is obviously desperate to appear “woke”. They’ll settle quietly. They should pay whatever her lawyers ask. They deserve it, for being so stupid.

by Anonymousreply 210February 16, 2020 1:14 PM

Conde Nast obviously isn't averse to losing money so they'll pay her.

by Anonymousreply 211February 16, 2020 1:30 PM

Richard Lawson definitely has changed since he moved to VF. He's very woke now and much less funny. It must be an infectious culture at CN. Gawker died right as the woke culture was taking off so who knows what would have happened there.

by Anonymousreply 212February 16, 2020 1:44 PM

Richard Lawson has had a full personality transplant. He is a humorless prick who has forgotten what made him popular in the first place. I’ve never seen someone go through such a shitty metamorphosis.

by Anonymousreply 213February 16, 2020 1:49 PM

R184 but are any of them profitable? I'd be surprised if Axios and Politico were.

by Anonymousreply 214February 16, 2020 1:51 PM

[quote] I'd be surprised if Axios and Politico were.

SURPRISE R214!!

[quote] Business Insider, Vox Media, The Information, Axios and Politico all turned profits in 2019

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 215February 16, 2020 1:55 PM

My impression is that Business Insider is sketchy... kind of a made up magazine... no pedigree, like The Atlantic or what have you.

by Anonymousreply 216February 16, 2020 3:14 PM

[quote] [R188] But it is true Blanche. When teen vogue does an article, written by a gay man, telling teenage girls how to 'enjoy' anal sex, the left is fucking broken.

The poster above me listed several titles that do not pander to the Twitter left: The Atlantic, New York, Axios and Politico. They might not be your cup of tea, and they might not always feature great journalism, but it's absurd to act as if the internet is beholden to loudmouths on Twitter. To know that, of course, you have to venture beyond social media and outrage sites in the first place.

by Anonymousreply 217February 16, 2020 3:22 PM

R215 you somehow manage to be a tremendous asshole with so few words. How's that working for you?

by Anonymousreply 218February 16, 2020 3:38 PM

R215 you forget to mention that most of those publications had massive layoffs the past year.

by Anonymousreply 219February 16, 2020 3:39 PM

R217 those are mostly center right publications. Axios especially, Politico, the Atlantic.

by Anonymousreply 220February 16, 2020 3:41 PM

It should have died years ago. And it's lame party.

by Anonymousreply 221February 16, 2020 3:55 PM

#FakeNews @ R219

by Anonymousreply 222February 16, 2020 4:06 PM

There isn’t any “high society” anymore. The Brooke Astors, the Old Westbury set. There are just billionaires and celebrities. Some celebrities think they’re society, like Gwyneth Paltrow. She’s not. She’s just another celebrity. Female celebrities show their breasts at award shows, talk about their vaginas and dress like sluts in musical performances, fingering themselves. One of their main goals is to be wank-off material. Male celebrities smack women around, dress like idiots in black leather pants, sing about anal sex and rape-y stuff. All we ever hear about is celebrities‘ money, their genitals, their cribs, and their weirdly named children who become celebrities in the womb. Baby bump alert! A celebrity is reproducing, woohoo!

Then there are the billionaires who are strangling the middle class, laundering money, cutting wages, allowing people to die on their shitty jobs & nobody cares. You could show a video of someone bleeding to death from a miscarriage on the floor of an amazon workhouse and media would immediately move into the next story about how crazy AOC is (and she’s not helping btw), what crazy things Trump said, what a Harvard doctor said about the crazy things Trump said, the latest airplane outrage, men vs women, is this sexist or not?, millennial vs Boomer, what color is this dress?, cat video!, wildfires!, could mega tsunami happen?, asteroid, dating your ex-stepfather, elderly priest sexual abuse, new billionaire’s house, car & spaceship!

by Anonymousreply 223February 16, 2020 4:56 PM

R218 Are you really that pathetically upset that R215 proved you wrong? Grow up.

by Anonymousreply 224February 16, 2020 5:02 PM

[quote] There isn’t any “high society” anymore.

Stop ruining the illusions of so many, many DLers

In their minds, the WASPocracy of the 1950s still reigns supreme and little blonde girls with bobs race Sunfish on the lake behind the yacht club while Mummy and Daddy have "martoonies" with Biff and Bunny.

by Anonymousreply 225February 16, 2020 5:12 PM

R224 = racist troll

by Anonymousreply 226February 16, 2020 5:25 PM

R226 So that's a yes, is it? As for calling other people racist - you're the one making generalisations of other people based on where they're from in other threads, like this from the Michael Lucas thread:

[QUOTE]He's Russian which means he was raised to swindle and cheat.

by Anonymousreply 227February 16, 2020 5:29 PM

R227 = Easily-triggered troll. How is the temperature in Moscow, Boris?

by Anonymousreply 228February 16, 2020 5:36 PM

R223 You just beautifully summed up our current shitty culture, were all forced to live in.

by Anonymousreply 229February 16, 2020 5:49 PM

Is there an Enraged RSS Fraucunt loose on this thread?

by Anonymousreply 230February 16, 2020 5:55 PM

Just a few points. 1. The person who said that VF's market was overwhelmingly white, and the current editor has thumbed her nose at it by featuring endless POC articles, about persons they don't really care about, nailed it.

2. Only magazines that are not fulfilling the desires of their market -- VF being a prime example due its editor -- are dying, as well as the middle market. But both extreme ends of the market -- the youth end and the wealthy end -- particularly the latter, are doing very well. To give a single example: Milieu, the relatively new upmarket shelter magazine that's like a stylish cross between World Of Interiors and AD, is thriving.

by Anonymousreply 231February 18, 2020 5:04 AM

Just a few points. 1. The person who said that VF's market was overwhelmingly white, and the current editor has thumbed her nose at it by featuring endless POC articles, about persons they don't really care about, nailed it.

2. Only magazines that are not fulfilling the desires of their market -- VF being a prime example due its editor -- are dying, as well as the middle market. But both extreme ends of the market -- the youth end and the wealthy end -- particularly the latter, are doing very well. To give a single example: Milieu, the relatively new upmarket shelter magazine that's like a stylish cross between World Of Interiors and AD, is thriving.

by Anonymousreply 232February 18, 2020 5:05 AM

Mileu Mag does what it aims to do very well.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 233February 18, 2020 5:07 AM

Hadn't heard of Milieu, but may check it out. House Beautiful, which was never the most interesting of magazines has gotten even more vapid, which I didn't think was possible.

So much of the POC content comes off as a lecture. I don't buy magazines to be lectured, I buy them to be entertained, sometimes informed. But I really hate being told that I'm an unwoke relic. Just doesn't do a thing for me.

by Anonymousreply 234February 18, 2020 5:13 AM

Milieu is a very good magazine. They stick to their theme and their audience and don't go off on tangents.

by Anonymousreply 235February 18, 2020 5:35 AM

I think that's because the editor is also the publisher. I'd love to see Radhika Jones burning her own money rather than that of the Newhouses, but again, it's their foolishness that's keeping her there.

by Anonymousreply 236February 18, 2020 5:49 AM

Indian women bosses are shit.

by Anonymousreply 237February 18, 2020 6:10 AM

I haven't read Vanity Fair in maybe 10 years. But when Lee Grant gets a featured story, you know they've run out of people to call fabulous and legendary. Who the fuck is SHE now? I read the article posted here and still don't know. Oh she was blacklisted? Goodness. A legend.

by Anonymousreply 238February 18, 2020 6:58 AM

Who the fuck uses email for rss/atom feeds? There are dozens of feed reader apps. No one but olds use email for anything.

by Anonymousreply 239February 18, 2020 8:10 AM

Good news. Although Conde Nast is denying it, word on the industry is that the Radhika Jones is on the way out and that replacements are being considered. Long overdue, and perhaps too late, but at least it's finally happening.

by Anonymousreply 240February 19, 2020 4:20 AM

They should reassign her to "them" as punishment.

by Anonymousreply 241February 19, 2020 3:00 PM

I saw dan peres on Tamra Hall. What a piece of shit. I bet kevin Sessums would like to rim him tho! Two useless junkies.

by Anonymousreply 242February 20, 2020 2:07 AM

Totally agree on Richard Lawson, upthread. I've been listening to "little gold men" for years and he used to be so funny and sweet. Now he's so bitter and cold, a biting, sarcastic sense of humor. Really cutting and bitchy. He's in a relationship now, too; he used to complain about it incessantly, so I figured once he got some regular dick it might make him warmer and happier. No such luck. Then all the Bernie stuff and the Pete hate and I just had to unfollow him on Twitter. I don't listen to LGM anymore either. (And I don't miss Joanna Robinson's shrill, baby girl, insipid, giggling, stupid voice, either.)

by Anonymousreply 243March 5, 2020 5:06 AM

[quote] When teen vogue does an article, written by a gay man, telling teenage girls how to 'enjoy' anal sex, the left is fucking broken.

WAIT! WHAT?!

by Anonymousreply 244March 6, 2020 7:24 AM

VF needs to go back to reporting old school stories, but with one important thing changed. Tell stories that haven't been repeated a million times before. No more Jackie Kennedy, no one wants to hear about that money grubbing clotheshorse anymore. Or Marilyn Monroe. We get it, she was an unstable druggie who felt used.

Perhaps a few tales from old Hollywood or 60s /70s scandals that not many have heard of. Perhaps some obscure historical figures and events. I think there is still a hunger for vintage, just not the same old stuff.

by Anonymousreply 245March 6, 2020 7:59 AM

But it spotlights America's hottest and most thrilling celebrities, like Lena Waithe!

by Anonymousreply 246March 6, 2020 8:08 AM

I read it for the political reporting which gave camouflage to the celebrity/society scandal coverage I was eating with a spoon. Between Hitchens, Dunne and Annie Leibovitz there was sure to be something I'd enjoy.

by Anonymousreply 247March 6, 2020 9:10 AM

Lena Waithe has just kind of receded, hasn't she? Looks like she's doing a show for BET and some featured roles here and there, but nothing that makes her the talk of the town.

Old Vanity Fair made some cover blunders (Hi Gretchen!), but the magazine needs an editor with a better sense of who's an "it" girl. The original Hollywood cover still had the highest ratio of future star spotting--Jennifer Jason Leigh, Uma Thurman, and Nicole Kidman got the main cover and were well known at the time, but the other seven were: Patricia Arquette, Sandra Bullock, Julianne Moore, Sarah Jessica Parker, Linda Fiorentino, Angela Bassett, Gwyneth Paltrow. Every single one of them went on to make at least one noteworthy film. Fiorentino has done the least, but that's because she's famously difficult, but she still did Men in Black and The Last Seduction. The others all have one or two minorly successful or who? actors on them.

by Anonymousreply 248March 8, 2020 8:01 AM

VF's zenith was the OJ double-murder case/trial.

by Anonymousreply 249March 17, 2020 2:08 AM

In 1990 I was twenty-six years old, living in Yorkville in a one bedroom tub-in-kitch tenement walk-up. I was a waiter and worked in nightclubs doing whatever they asked me to do, because I liked working in nitelife.

I subscribed to exactly THREE magazines which I read in the tub (in my kitch) the moment they arrived. Vanity Fair, SPY, and EGG, the one-year wonder magazine published by pre-dead Malcolm Forbes and edited by the hilariously loathsome Hal Rubenstein!

It really was a modern pre-internet peak magazine era, and while my life spun out of control with depression and everyone dying of AIDS, I certainly was vastly entertained and reasonably well informed!

by Anonymousreply 250March 17, 2020 2:47 AM

Was Tina Brown's TALK magazine as good as some have claimed? I grew up in the Netherlands and don't recall ever seeing it on newsstands here.

by Anonymousreply 251March 17, 2020 11:50 AM

Talk was a disaster. It ruined Maer Roshan's career.

by Anonymousreply 252March 17, 2020 7:25 PM

Vanity Fair readers like to read about, Politics, Politicans, Movie Stars, Socialites, NY Society, Scandals, Highend murder cases, Old Hollywood, The Arts and Cultural things etc.

That's what Vanity Fair is about. Not the Woke stuff.

by Anonymousreply 253March 17, 2020 7:34 PM

They just hit me for an automatic renewal fee of $49.95. I'm positive I didn't subscribe for that much. Fifty bucks for one year!

by Anonymousreply 254March 21, 2020 4:21 PM

R250 That sounds much like my life at the time. Same neighborhood and apartment even.

Anyone remember Fame magazine?

by Anonymousreply 255March 21, 2020 4:26 PM

[quote] Old Vanity Fair made some cover blunders (Hi Gretchen!), but the magazine needs an editor with a better sense of who's an "it" girl. The original Hollywood cover still had the highest ratio of future star spotting--Jennifer Jason Leigh, Uma Thurman, and Nicole Kidman got the main cover and were well known at the time, but the other seven were: Patricia Arquette, Sandra Bullock, Julianne Moore, Sarah Jessica Parker, Linda Fiorentino, Angela Bassett, Gwyneth Paltrow. Every single one of them went on to make at least one noteworthy film. Fiorentino has done the least, but that's because she's famously difficult, but she still did Men in Black and The Last Seduction. The others all have one or two minorly successful or who? actors on them.

I've been a subscriber for 10+ years and I never really cared all that much for their "next Hollywood big thing" articles since I realized early on that they were basically doing PR for Harvey Weinstein stable of starlets. JLaw was featured every other month, they were also doing a lot of PR for Angelina Jolie and a couple of others - it was boring fluff. Where they truly excelled was the coverage of aristocratic and financial/entertainment industry scandals. Some of their coverage of the 2008 banking crisis was superb - I think it even got published as a book, collecting all the articles from that era.

by Anonymousreply 256March 21, 2020 4:46 PM

The end is nigh

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 257April 13, 2020 5:54 PM

I was a decades long subscriber until they posted this video suggesting that Hillary Clinton makes a resolution to take up knitting among other things to keep her from running for office again.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 258April 13, 2020 6:07 PM

Didn't Vanity Fair used to have interviews with Fran Lebowitz? And now this week she has one with the New Yorker instead. That tells you something about both magazines.

by Anonymousreply 259April 13, 2020 6:29 PM

Vanity Fair went to shit when Graydon Carter was the editor. Too much coverage of New York City elite. I mean who cares?

by Anonymousreply 260April 13, 2020 6:57 PM

THEM? It's nothing but that ridiculous website, with an Executive Editor and a CBO and shared services for ad inquires, etc., that "publishes" six times a year? That's coins found under the sofa cushions money, and for people less rich than the Newhouses. THEM is an embarrassing freakshow for all involved (and all not involved) but it's the least fo Conde Nast's business problems.

I don't know how Vanity Fair lurched along as long as it did. Every few months one somewhat interesting article? Annie Leibovitz doing yet another scandalously wry photoshoot of yet another "rockstar" - covered in milk? in chocolate? in chocolate AND peanut butter? It seemed to have existed on its own fumes of illusion for a long time, giving the magazine away in return for higher circulation and higher ad fees.

Some of their specialty magazines are still good: CN Traveller, House & Garden (UK), etc. I wish them well but it can't be easy at some point just to keep feeding the machine more money.

by Anonymousreply 261April 13, 2020 7:02 PM

R180 -- agree with you re Remick - his problem is that he thinks that every writer in the New Yorker should have the same, flat tone that he uses in his own writing. As a result the magazine reads like a monotone, without any style, voice, or differentiation. It's beyond boring.

by Anonymousreply 262April 13, 2020 11:42 PM

RIP. And your stupid parties.

by Anonymousreply 263April 14, 2020 12:41 AM

VF lost one of their own to covid-19

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 264April 14, 2020 1:21 AM

Pay cuts! Will Anna Wintour be poor?

"The salaries of those earning $100,000 or more — just under half the company — will be reduced by 10 to 20 percent for five months, starting in May, the memo said. The pay of executives in the senior management team, including Anna Wintour, the artistic director and Condé Nast’s best-known figurehead, will be cut 20 percent."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 265April 14, 2020 1:24 AM

[quote]How's Graydon's little newsletter doing, anyway?[quote]

I read the newsletter on its (poorly designed) website from time to time. You can find some free articles there. It's less glossy than VF, more like an apolitical Daily Beast, though it has recently published an article about Trump's drug abuse. In recent issues, it also has more and more (even paywalled) articles reprinted from other media like The London Times. Guess they have difficulty finding enough contributors now. Graydon models it on the FT Weekend. You can just read the real FT Weekend, which is way better.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 266May 3, 2020 6:27 PM

Ah, I get it, OP. It’s tge multiculturalism that’s pissed you off. They put a black woman in a high position. Now it’s going to die because they can’t write & they’re woke & white people wont read them.

by Anonymousreply 267May 3, 2020 6:50 PM

R267 The results speak for themselves.

by Anonymousreply 268May 3, 2020 10:21 PM

Has Graydon done anything about his hair yet?

by Anonymousreply 269May 3, 2020 10:50 PM

I just read an article in the latest issue, about some murder among New York 'semi-elite'. It was so boring, even Dominic Dunne couldn't have made it seem interesting.

The puff piece interview with the Princess Royal was pretty dull too.

by Anonymousreply 270May 5, 2020 5:03 AM

R267=professional victim.

by Anonymousreply 271May 5, 2020 5:16 AM

Is this the article you mean, R270?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 272May 5, 2020 5:21 AM

I was a diehard reader of VF for many years. I remember when that asshole trump used to write letters to the editor in the 90s, bragging about all the models he dated, even Carla Bruni, who denied she dated him. I let my subscription lapse after Graydon Garter retired and the mag lost its appeal to me. Also used to read Spy back in the day.

One thing I miss is poring over the glamorous ads every month.

by Anonymousreply 273May 5, 2020 6:08 AM

I cancelled my subscription after they stopped featuring long dead white people.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 274May 5, 2020 6:38 AM

R271= Professional AssHole.

by Anonymousreply 275May 5, 2020 7:04 AM

R272: the author of the article is a cutie -

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 276May 5, 2020 7:55 AM

I am just finishing a year of VF courtesy of unused airline miles. I have read it off and on for years and must say that it has been dissapointing to say the least.

by Anonymousreply 277May 5, 2020 8:48 AM

After Tina Brown, VF was doomed. Graydon Carter proved to be a slimy hack and who knows what this current idiot is doing. Conde Nast in general is a mess.

by Anonymousreply 278May 5, 2020 9:24 PM

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.

by Anonymousreply 279May 5, 2020 9:46 PM

Is that uppity Indian woke bitch who ruined everything still there?

If so, VF deserves to fail.

by Anonymousreply 280May 5, 2020 10:01 PM

R275=unemployed cunt!

by Anonymousreply 281May 6, 2020 4:50 AM

The Vanity Fair readership are mostly upper middle class to upper class people. People like that want to read about other wealthy people, they don't care about being socially conscious or woke culture. Injustice is not something that they care about, until it happens to them.

by Anonymousreply 282May 6, 2020 11:44 PM

The Princess Anne was just bizarre. Radhika is utterly clueless when it comes to creating that essential melange of high brow hijinks that the mag desperate needs. Embarrassingly clueless. Perhaps she's panicking realising the mag has fallen off the Woke cliff, and was trying to claw it back with some "Society' tinsel. Perhaps she saw it as her Tina Brown 'Mouse That Roared' Di article moment -- especially given she slapped a decades old pic of Anne on the cover. Instead the interview was a soggy pancake.

by Anonymousreply 283May 19, 2020 2:20 PM

The Princess Anne article is not as good as it would have been under Tina Brown or Graydon Carter.

VF wasted a once-in-a blue-moon opportunity to do a great article.

by Anonymousreply 284May 19, 2020 2:30 PM

I wonder who on Datalounge has such a hard on for Vanity Fair & Condé Nast?

“They said banning me from Twitter would finish me off. Just as I predicted, the opposite has happened.”

Milo Hanrahan in a quote published by Vanity Fair & T. H.R.

by Anonymousreply 285May 19, 2020 5:22 PM

Vanity Fair is no longer Elitist enough for the Elitist snooty classist trash who reads the Magazine.

by Anonymousreply 286May 20, 2020 8:04 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!