Quartz's article (the second link) made the case that Teen Vogue seemed exceptional because the general public by and large finds the idea of "women's magazines

Quartz's article (the second link) made the case that Teen Vogue seemed exceptional because the general public by and large finds the idea of "women's magazines" publishing articles about anything other than fashion and makeup to be mind-blowingly weird. While I think it's true that we humans as a whole are inclined to overpraise that which we already agree with and to criticize that which we already disagree with, it's not as if the journalism landscape of 2016–17 was lacking in reporting/opinion critical of Trump. I would suggest that if TV did get disproportionate attention for theirs, it was because it ran counter to the popular stereotype of women's/teen-girl magazines, even though one could make the case -- as Quartz did -- that there's actually always been both a journalistic streak and a feminist streak in many of them. In any case, I think the point in the context of TV publishing and unpublishing the Facebook fluff piece is that doing that sort of thing runs counter to the more recent perception of them as politically savvy enough to understand how publishing a PR-provided article like that might look to their audience in particular.