The article seems to summarize events concisely and provides links to outside references. We really shouldn’t turn our nose up to any outlet trying to share information. Even if an outlet tends to be sensationalist we should pay attention to each article as they may be breaking a story, provide more research paths, or give an insight from a point of view we miss.

With that being said I know nothing of Vogue or TeenVogue. However you never know when someone cry’s “wolf” if it is the real deal unless you look.

you never know when someone cries “wolf” if it is the real deal unless you look.

Do you seriously not remember the point of that story? It’s that people will stop believing you if you continually cry wolf, regardless if there is a wolf or not. That’s a cautionary tale for the kid/liar, not for the town to ALWAYS check if there is a wolf or not.

Teen Vogue has an incentive to be sensationalist. They failed as a beauty magazine around 2015, so they pivoted online to these kinds of articles, but they’re still a sensationalist magazine. The article itself still has anti-semitic undertones while arguing against American Nazis. Want to know which noun the article uses to follow ‘Jewish’ the most often? ‘Gangster’ - 10 times ‘Mobster’ - Twice But also, ‘Organized crime’, ‘mobs’, ‘underworld’, ‘radicals’, and ‘gangs’. - Each used once.

That’s not a glowing review of impartiality. They might get some facts correct, but the damage they cause along the way isn’t worth it. If you want to use their articles as a jumping-off-point, that’s fine, but don’t use them directly - use their links and sources instead.