Vanity Fair editor in chief Radhika Jones calls it quits — and Anna Wintour’s reaction stunned staffers

New York Post - Apr 3rd, 2025

Vanity Fair editor in chief Radhika Jones announced her departure from Condé Nast after a significant 7-year tenure. Jones, who took over from Graydon Carter in 2017, revealed her plans to leave in the spring during a meeting with staff at Vanity Fair's New York offices. The meeting, which included Condé Nast artistic director Anna Wintour, was marked by a rare show of emotion as Wintour was reportedly tearful during Jones’s farewell. Jones, one of the last editors to command a seven-figure salary at Condé Nast, leaves as the magazine industry faces challenges from declining advertising and readership. Her successor is expected to be more junior with a smaller salary. A successor has not yet been named.

Jones's departure comes at a challenging time for magazines, yet her reflective memo to staff highlighted her accomplishments and the fulfillment of her initial editorial goals. Notably, her tenure included the commissioning of Amy Sherald’s painting of Breonna Taylor for the September 2020 cover, a cultural moment that both she and Wintour regard as a defining achievement. Jones's exit signifies a shift in the magazine industry and at Condé Nast, where the era of high editorial salaries and perks is considered over. Her leadership has been marked by navigating these industry changes while maintaining Vanity Fair's cultural relevance.

Breonna Taylor Condé Nast Vanity Fair Anna Wintour Radhika Jones Magazine Industry Amy Sherald

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a timely and generally accurate account of Radhika Jones' departure from Vanity Fair, highlighting key aspects of her tenure and the context of her resignation. It is well-structured and clear, making it accessible to readers with an interest in media industry news. However, the reliance on unnamed sources for specific claims, such as salary details and emotional reactions, affects the overall credibility and transparency. While the story addresses topics of interest to media professionals, its impact on broader public opinion is limited. The article could benefit from more diverse perspectives and explicit source attribution to enhance balance and source quality. Overall, it is a solid piece of reporting with some areas for improvement in source transparency and balance.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports on Radhika Jones' departure from Vanity Fair, providing specific details about her tenure and the context of her leaving. The claim that Jones announced her departure in a staff meeting and that Anna Wintour was present is consistent with the information available. However, the article does not provide explicit sources for some claims, such as Jones' rumored salary and Wintour's emotional reaction, which are presented as hearsay. These elements require verification, but the core facts about Jones' resignation and her tenure are well-supported by external sources.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective of Radhika Jones and her accomplishments during her tenure. It includes a quote from Anna Wintour, adding some balance by providing another viewpoint on Jones' impact. However, it lacks perspectives from other stakeholders, such as staff members or industry experts, which could provide a more rounded view of the situation. The focus on Jones' achievements and Wintour's reaction may suggest a slight bias towards portraying her tenure positively, without exploring potential criticisms or challenges she faced.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow from Jones' announcement to the implications for Vanity Fair. The language is straightforward, and the narrative is easy to follow. The inclusion of direct quotes and specific details about the meeting and Jones' tenure enhances clarity. However, some claims, such as those about salary and emotional reactions, are not clearly attributed, which could confuse readers about the reliability of these details.

Source quality

The article cites a company-wide memo and a source close to the situation, suggesting some level of insider information. However, it lacks named sources and direct quotes from multiple stakeholders, which would enhance credibility. The reliance on a single unnamed source for details about Jones' salary and Wintour's reaction raises questions about the reliability of these claims. The absence of direct quotes from Jones or official statements from Condé Nast limits the article's authority on the subject.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the challenges facing the magazine industry, but it lacks transparency regarding the sources of specific claims, such as Jones' salary and future plans for the magazine's leadership. The use of anonymous sources without clear attribution or explanation of their credibility reduces transparency. The article could benefit from more explicit disclosure of how information was obtained and the potential biases of sources.