On Thursday, publisher Condé Nast announced several changes in response to a changing digital media landscape. 80 positions were eliminated throughout its magazines, publications like GQ and Glamour will now publish one fewer issue each year, and Teen Vogue will go out of print entirely.
That last one is less dramatic than you might think.
The magazine came out four times a year and, well, when was the last time you saw someone reading a physical copy of it? If the magazine crossed your radar some time in the past year, it’s likely because of something published on the magazine’s website, and the website isn’t going anywhere.
One person who celebrated the print publication’s downfall was Elizabeth Johnston, the “Activist Mommy,” who went viral in July when she burned a copy of Teen Vogue because she said it included an article about anal sex.
The irony is that the article never appeared in print. Johnston lied on camera when she said it appeared in their June issue. It was online only and Johnston’s illogical rant would’ve made more sense if she burned some laptops. Even then, it would’ve been idiotic since she’s not going to shelter kids from information that’s online.
The article wasn’t even all that provocative. It didn’t encourage kids to have anal sex, as Johnston implied. It merely explained why some people might like it, why lube was necessary for anyone trying it, how your partner may not want to do it, and how the act wasn’t for everyone.
In other words, it wasn’t some video guide to sodomy. It was sex education 101.
The print publication’s cancellation won’t change what goes up on the website, but that didn’t stop Johnston from taking a victory lap in an email to the Christian Post:
“The publisher, Condé Nast, has shuttered the [Teen Vogue] print publication, while other Condé Nast publications will remain in print. Operation Pull Teen Vogue was a grassroots campaign by concerned parents who don’t believe anal sex and sex toys should be peddled to their children under the guise of a fashion magazine,” Johnston wrote. “Teen Vogue editors Elaine Welteroth and Phillip Picardi ignored our concerns and mocked our campaign, but we gave them a black eye from which they never recovered. Let the watching world take note: If you pander obscenity to our kids, especially for a profit, we will destroy you.“
Johnston is claiming victory in a contest in which she never actually participated.
Hell, if anything, the attention Johnston drew to that article gave them even more incentive to publish other pieces just like it in the future. And since their focus is 100% online now, that makes the decision even easier.
The New York Times supports that theory:
Teen Vogue’s shift to its new identity as an online entity represents a vote of confidence by Condé Nast executives in the title’s digital editorial director, Phillip Picardi, 26. Mr. Picardi, who is also the digital editorial director of Allure, is credited within the company for the title’s recent digital growth.
Last week, he introduced a site devoted to LGBTQ issues, “them,” which Condé Nast hopes to use as a template for creating more lower-cost, digital-only titles.
So… I guess we owe Johnston a big thank you?
Because of her inability to deal with frank sex talk, more children will be exposed to articles about the subject. And LGBTQ issues.
On a side note, it’s disturbing that Johnston takes delight in abusive language — giving Teen Vogue‘s editors a black eye and saying she’ll destroy them — when she herself has published articles on her website all about how to beat children the proper Christian way.
This kind of video isn’t helping, either.
Who knew loving Jesus meant glorifying violence?
(via NewsVideoClip.tv. Portions of this article were published earlier)