Or how marrying politics and fashion is not a great idea.
We can all agree that the unsuccessful presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was successful in one thing – she re-invented the block colours in her impeccable wardrobe. And while the concession speech two-piece – black with purple lapels – bore too much resemblance to the Halloween witch costume, some others were much better thought through.
Just recall the pantsuit tightly hugging Hillary’s podgy frame during the third and final debate – ivory white, to signify the purity of intentions and integrity of the presidential candidate; quite aptly chosen to compensate for the chronic corruption and emails scandal that has broken out like an inflamed carbuncle on the face of Hillary Clinton’s public image.
Ever since the first printed images were invented, every public figure has been judged by their looks and this presidential campaign Hillary has ‘hit the nail in the head’. Candidate’s political credentials aside, it is important to credit ‘Hillary’s little helper’ who was solely responsible for a dramatic change from ‘complete average’ to the comical label of ‘fashion icon’.
Understandably, every public figure who doesn’t want to leave anything to chance is using the help of a personal stylist. What is however unusual, is that the little helper was no one else than the ‘world renowned’ Editor of Vogue Anna Wintour herself. Nicely fitting in the position of a chief cornerstone of everything to do with fashion, Anna Wintour is one of the most influential persons in the fashion world. Think ‘Devil Wears Prada’, written by Wintour’s former PA.
“All of us at Vogue look forward to putting on the cover the first woman president of the United States.”
Anna Wintour in 2013 at the Oscar de la Renta event
Hillary Clinton dressed by Anna Wintour
Apart from the usual personal stylist duties – actively forming Hillary’s wardrobe and arranging for clothes’ sponsorships – Wintour has self-righteously ‘extended’ her jurisdiction far beyond what some perceive as acceptable for a person of her position and influence.
The public backlash broke out after Hillary’s spectacular defeat with some publications expressing their concerns over the fact that the Editor In Chief of Conde Nast (Vogue Publisher) used her own status and name and those of her publication to influence the bohemian fashion world as well as covertly form the opinion of all its readers.
Vogue March feature of Hillary Clinton
Wintour’s personal preferences aside – she can continue fundraising for the most corrupt politician in recorded history all she wants if it makes her happy – the numerous endorsements of Vogue magazine are considered by some as a strategically planned whitewash skilfully orchestrated by Wintour herself.
The laughable ‘iconisation’ of Hillary by Vogue can be seen through headlines like: “Donald Trump Is Not an Aberration: Your Nightmare Election Recap,” “Happy Anniversary! 14 Memorable Moments From Bill and Hillary Clinton’s 41-Year Marriage,” “Hillary Clinton Has a Few Thoughts on Kim Kardashian West’s Robbery,” “The Best Headbands of All Time, From Brigitte Bardot to Hillary Clinton.”
Vogue also ran a lengthy, positive profile of Abedin in the months leading up to the election without more than a nod to the scandal involving Anthony Weiner, the aide’s disgraced paedo husband.
On another side of the argument were headlines such as “Ivanka Trump Addresses the Boycotts Against Her Brand” and “Ivanka Trump Finally Addresses Her Father’s Lewd Tape”, and not a word of either Melania or Ivanka’s great choice of attires, fully paid by themselves and not likely gifted via happy-to-serve Wintour.
What wasn’t featured in Vogue is Wintour’s numerous Clinton fundraising events and campaigns in Paris and London and on the East and West Coast, as well as a fashion show fundraiser in September. Not a word about Wintour’s fundraiser in Washington DC where their Editor was joined by Huma Abedin and Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) chair Diane von Furstenberg – yes, Wintour’s tentacles have been pushing the buttons of CFDA too.
And while there is nothing wrong in engaging in fundraising activity, there is everything wrong in keeping the wider picture away from its readership. Alas, in this instance Vogue decided that their readers are too dim to be given a full picture – again – and are better kept in the dark – painfully reminiscent of Hillary’s political stance.
With such subtle and covert manipulation of opinion by Vogue, push of its own political agenda on an unsuspecting readership, is it right to ask what role should women’s magazines play in forming our political views and whether the main women’s magazine in town has actually crossed the line, not for the first time.
Until recently Vogue has kept a pretty facade of operating almost in parallel realities with the politics. This is no longer the case, and, while Wintour’s has every right to do what she felt is right, she made us reconsider the integrity and credibility of Vogunieverse and the world of women’s magazines’ reporting.
Copyright © 2018 - Ikon London Magazine
