Whoever controls the narrative controls the world – Caitlin Johnstone
In the late 19th century, the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov found that objects or events could trigger a conditioned response in canines. By simply ringing a bell, Pavlov could elicit a ‘psychic secretion,’ with the dogs salivating wildly.
Fast forward one hundred and years, and vast swathes of society have been conditioned by the media. The mere utterance of words like ‘privilege,’ ‘masculinity,’ ‘equality,’ and ‘race’ make millions of people froth at the mouth. This is a very specific type of conditioning, very much a product of recent times, with the mainstream media playing the role of Pavlov. Media executives know that by controlling the narrative, they control the people. And of all the conditioning experts out there, Condé Nast is better than most.
As its website states, ‘Condé Nast is a global media company that produces some of the world’s leading print, digital, video and social brands. These include Vogue, GQ, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Wired and Architectural Digest (AD).’
The publishing giant also owns Pitchfork, Teen Vogue, Glamour, and Epicurious, a digital brand that focuses on food and cooking-related topics. From fashion to politics, teenage advice to travel, science to architectural design, music reviews to cooking tips, Condé Nast has it all.
It’s the one stop shop for advice…on everything.
In recent times, many journalists have written about Condé Nast’s irrelevance. But, considering Wired, one of its flagship magazines, averages more than 4 million monthly readers, such cries of irrelevance are simply unfounded.
Worryingly, Condé Nast’s clients appear to fashion their stories around very similar themes, usually involving buzzwords like ‘privilege’ and ‘social justice.’
Take GQ magazine, for example. The international men's magazine is ostensibly dedicated to fashion. However, for years now, so much of its content has centered around one idea – the idea of privilege. More specifically, white privilege.
Over at GQ, writers ask some of the most important questions of our time, like, can shirtless drumming save society from toxic masculinity? And is this the end of straight?
Come for fashion advice, stay for the condéscending tone.
Meanwhile, Vanity Fair, a monthly magazine ostensibly dedicated to popular culture, offers up articles with titles like The Unbearable Whiteness of Storming the Capitol.
Vanity Fair also runs articles on abolishing the police force. Come for fashion advice, leave with a minor in social justice.
Perhaps, of all Condé Nast’s publications, Architectural Digest is its most interesting. It’s a magazine dedicated to architecture, what could go wrong? Well, quite a lot, actually. Here, you can read articles like When Architecture and Racial Justice Intersect and How the Design Industry Can Confront Racist Terminology. For some reason, AD also runs articles on abolishing the police force.
Then, there’s Pitchfork, the ‘most trusted voice in music.’ Whether or not it is the most trusted voice in music is highly debatable, it’s certainly the most supercilious. If they aren’t busy curating playlists like ‘The Sounds of Black Lives Matter,’ staff are busy writing articles with titles like ‘On Loving Taylor Swift While Being Brown,’ which starts off with the question, ‘how should people of color consume the work of our white icons once we've realized they don't really represent us?’ What is posed as a sort of philosophical conundrum is really just a passive aggressive jab at whites. This is Pitchfork in a nutshell - passive-aggressive and highly patronizing in tone.
If Pitchfork fails to whet your appetite, why not head over to Epicurious, where you can read articles dedicated to food justice. If the term conjures up thoughts of articles dedicated to the ‘tyranny of scones’ and ‘the unbearable whiteness of yogurt,’ you’re wrong, but not that wrong.
Theoretically, when it comes to matters of content, the likes of Architectural Digest and Epicurious shouldn’t really have much in common. One is dedicated to architecture, the other is dedicated to cuisine. However, Condé Nast appears to be in the business of metanarratives, where a “big picture” works to unite smaller themes and diverse stories. The “big picture” here involves problematizing whiteness and heteronormativity, as if they are dangerous viruses that require immediate inoculation.
One can’t help but think that Anna Wintour, one of the most influential fashion gurus in the world, has played a major role in creating this metanarrative. As Condé Nast’s chief content officer, Wintour oversees all magazines worldwide. Accused of elitism in the past, and faced with a reckoning of sorts, is overcorrection at play? To make up for past “sins,” is Wintour, the face of Condé Nast’s, now working to make the content even more woke?
The Teen Vogue Problem
In March of this year, Alexi McCammond was fired from her position as editor-in-chief of Teen Vogue. For “sins” committed in her youth (decade old tweets sent when she was a teenager), McCammond was forced out. Although she apologized profusely, genuine apologies are no longer accepted in this post-forgiveness world. Ironically, and rather disconcertingly, the fact that these tweets were sent when McCammond was a teenage girl appear to be lost on the magazine that is intended to be the voice of teenage girls around the world. McCammond shouldn’t have lost her job for two reasons: a) she was a child when the tweets were sent b) Teen Vogue shouldn’t exist in the first place, at least not in its current format.
From the inane to the borderline insane, Teen Vogue is a worrying mess. In a matter of minutes, one can read an article about Elizabeth Olsen’s hair color, then move on to an article discussing the dangers of heteronormativity. The transformation of Teen Vogue, which became an online-only publication in 2017, has been as swift as it has been shocking. In the space of a few years, it went from giving advice on how to transition your wardrobe to giving advice on how to transition genders. Of course, Teen Vogue also offers helpful articles on abolishing the police force. Considering it has almost 12 million unique users and more than 13.4 million followers on social media, Teen Vogue is a highly influential publication. Obviously enough, girls between the ages of 13 and 19 are its target demographic. Should we be worried? Yes.
After all, the teenage years are when children are most impressionable. Vulnerable and emotionally raw, many are trying to carve out an identity. Teen Vogue articles resonate, and the ripple effect of these articles (i.e. the sharing of articles, the discussions they generate, the lasting impressions they make) can change lives
The teens of today are the adults of tomorrow, and millions of them are being condétioned to think in a very specific way.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member