The New Yorker Radio Hour - Anna Wintour Embraces a New Era at Vogue

Episode Date: September 5, 2025

Speculation, analysis, and commentary circulated all summer, after the announcement, in June, that Anna Wintour would step back from her role as the editor-in-chief of American Vogue. This changing of the guard is uniquely fraught, because Wintour’s name has become nearly inextricable from the magazine, to a degree almost unknown today. And, as New York Fashion Week was set to begin, Wintour spoke with David Remnick about choosing her successor, the Vogue.com editor Chloe Malle. “It felt like this was the right time,” she says. With an unusual number of new creative directors in positions at major fashion houses, “It seemed like a good moment to bring in someone with a different perspective and a different generation who could look at things in a new way.” Wintour was appointed editor-in-chief in 1988, and generations of designers have come up under her famously acute and decisive judgments. She comes from a publishing family; her brother is a well-known journalist, and her father was the editor of the London Evening Standard. She credits him with steering her into a career in fashion, even suggesting that the teen-age Anna write down “editor of Vogue” as her career aspiration on a school form. “Working my first jobs in London, there [was] no money, there’s no staff, there’s no teams, so that you have to learn how to do everything,” Wintour says. “So, when I came to the States and there was a shoe editor and an underwear editor and a fabric editor, it was all so siloed. I felt very confident because I sort of knew how to do everything.” Wintour is also known for bringing politics to Vogue; she’s a noted Democratic supporter and donor. “I’ve been impressed by Governor Newsom, I think he’s certainly making a stand, and obviously I’m sure there’ll be many other candidates that will emerge, hopefully soon.” But, in this political environment, Remnick asks, “How do you make a case that fashion is important?” Fashion, she replies, “is always important. It’s a question of self-expression and a statement about yourself. . . . And, forgive me, David, but how boring would it be if everybody was just wearing a dark suit and a white shirt all the time?” New Yorker Radio Hour listeners, we want to hear from you.  We have a few questions about the show and how you listen to it. The survey takes about twenty minutes, and your feedback will help us make our podcast better.  Take the survey here.

This is The New Yorker Radio Hour, a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Welcome to The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. When it was announced in June that Anna Wintour would step back from her role as editor-in-chief of Vogue, the flagship U.S. edition. It wasn't one of those items that's old news in a day. Speculation, analysis, and commentary circulated all summer. But now Winter has named her successor, Chloe Mowell, who's a new story. worked at the magazine since 2011. Now, I'm hardly an objective observer here.

Anna and I have been colleagues and friends for a very long time. Even as Chloe Mel takes over at Vogue, Anna will remain in very senior roles. She's the editorial director of all the Vogue editions throughout the world, and she's the chief content officer of Condy Nass, which publishes the New Yorker as well. But what's unique about this particular change of the guard is that when, Ventura is synonymous with Vogue itself. Many people these days can't name the editor of a major newspaper any more than they can name the king of Belgium. But when the camera pans to Anno Wintor in the stands at the U.S. Open or Wimbledon, you know who that is.

No Chiron necessary. Wintour was appointed creative director of Vogue in 1983, then editor-in-chief in 1988. And whole generations of designers have come up under her famously decisive judge. She organizes the annual Met Gala, which she grew from a charity dinner, into a global phenomenon. We met in our studios at One World Trade Center. Here I am. I'm a lamb to the slaughter. That's exactly what's going to happen.

How are you? Good. So, Anna, we are talking on the day that Connie Nass announced that Chloe Mal is going to succeed you as editor of American Vogue. How do you feel? I feel great. I love Chloe. I'm very happy for her. She's going to do a brilliant job. We've worked together for well over a decade. But at the same time, she really had to prove herself during the interview process. We saw a lot of amazing, amazing candidates. And Chloe consistently came back with the clearest vision and the most original ideas and understanding of what a vogue in, well, I don't think we can talk in five. 10 years anymore in two years it's going to look like.

And I... What are the specifics? She understands a newsroom. She understands immediacy. She understands culture. She understands completely that fashion doesn't exist in a vacuum, that it's a result of many different forces, whether it's something that might be happening in music or a film or politically and wants to put it into that kind of a context.

Plus, she has a great sense. of humor. I mean, her story that she thought of this summer called Doge. I mean, it went through the roof with our numbers and it was so much fun just to look at. All those crazy dogs dressed up with earrings and beautiful collars and celebrities from all over the world was sending their dogs. So, you know, she has a really good balance about what works. Now, why step aside from American Vogue now? Have you been thinking about this for a long time? I have been thinking. about it for some time. And it felt like this was the right time because we're seeing so much change in fashion. When we go off to the shows, well, actually, I think they start next week. I believe

there's well over 14 new creative directors in very high-level positions all over Europe and some here. So it seemed like a good moment to bring in someone with a different perspective and a different generation who could look at things in a new way. Now, at first in 1988, you burst on the scene as the new Vogue editor by putting somebody on the cover with a pair of jeans on. In fact, I noticed that Chloe was wearing jeans. She was in her photograph on the Vogue website. She may be signaling something. I think that picture was taken a while ago, but she looked great. And similarly to Chloe, I had been working at Vogue as creative director before I took the position at American Vogue and also at British Vogue. So I also had some history.

And I think that's a very helpful way to start a new job to understand how things work, who the people are, how decisions are made. And maybe you want to do things in a different way. But just having that is a huge advantage. So you have this. odd situation now. You are not leaving your office, your physical office. You've got two huge jobs at Condi and S where you're the editorial director of, well, of everything. And you've got a lot going on, whether it's the Met Gala or your other interests and family and all this, but you're still, you're right there and your successor is down the hall. And Chloe said this to the times today.

The truth is that no one's going to replace Anna. And so you're going to be right to. down the hall and the Times wrote that both women have acknowledged the strangeness of this arrangement. How will this work? Well, I think I implicitly trust Chloe and I wanted to succeed to the best possible degree. I think that she is beloved by her team. I think that she will require from all of us, not just me, from everybody and from our editors group, from everybody here at Coninass. I think she'll, and she's the kind of editor that welcomes that. She doesn't work in any way in isolation. She's very open. She's very communicative. Her office is always full of people. She's very outgoing. But will you be in her head, is what I mean. In other words,

will she be trying to edit to please you? I don't think so. I absolutely don't think so. I think she's very much her own person. She has her own point of view. I mean, how does it differ? She's, I think, I think, I think she looks at things with a more, what's the right word, not eccentric, quirky, unusual point of view. She comes at things from different angles. She's interested in fashion, but not obsessed with it, so that there are many levels that will weigh into her decisions. I think that she will not be drawn into, I don't like this word, but a fashionista conversation. I think that she will be able to step back and look at things in a very healthy context. Because the fashionista conversation dissipated and disappeared in the contemporary world? I think it exists very much in certain circles. And I think that what I love about Chloe is that she's an insider, but she's also an outsider. What you're saying is she doesn't want to be an Anna Mini Me.

No, not at all. And that was very clear during the interview process and all the conversations. that we've had, she wants to be her own person. I think she's not interested in those kinds of comparisons. She just wants to be herself and show herself and prove herself and make news, as I'm sure she will. So when you took over Vogue, Vogue had this immensely central place in this very big business and in the fashion discussion.

And now we live in an age of Instagram, TikTok, the technological democratization of fashion, etc. and God knows what role AI is going to play. So how is her job different from yours? Well, I look on Vogue as being the world's biggest fashion influencer. If you look at our reach from a social perspective, American Vogue alone has well over 50 million followers. If you look at the numbers that we receive on our site or on our app

or the way whatever we may be putting it across any of our platforms, received or seen or heard, that the influence is immeasurable. So I think, in a way, Chloe has a much bigger platform than I had. When I came in, I always remember Alex Lieberman telling me the... Editorial director in those days. A very imperious figure. Editorial director, wonderful figure, my mentor and my boss for many years. He used to tell me that they would go to Jones Beach in the afternoons because there wasn't that much to do. Can you imagine that, David? I really cannot. No, so I don't think that Chloe will be spending any of her time at Jones Beach in the afternoon, but I actually think if I remember when I started at American Vogue and it was solely a print publication with, you know, a few events and genteel sort of parties that we had to go to.

Now she has all these different ways of talking to our audiences, whether it's through social or TikTok or TikTok or print or events, which are a huge part of what we or what we think about. today or, you know, any of the many, many ways that we reach our audiences. How amazing, how exciting, how interesting, how cultural relevant is it? And it's so fascinating to see how much Vogue means to our world. I mean, I was flooded with emails this morning. It's, it does mean a lot to people within the fashion world and without. And that's a great honor. And it's a great responsibility. You mentioned print. When I started in 1998 at The New Yorker,

I thought I was about to lose my job within a month. Cy Newhouse, of course, owns the joint and ran Condi Nast completely and thoroughly in those days, asked to have lunch with me at his apartment. Usually we went to some restaurant. Yes. And I thought, well, this is a world record. You've really done it.

And he took out... Was it a yellow pad? He took out a yellow pad. And we were losing money at that point. I won't say how much. But it was not insubstantial. And he said, you know, if we went from weekly to biweekly, we would save millions and millions of dollars,

and we would suddenly become profitable. And then he said something that I'll never forget. He said, but it's your decision. It was the editor's decision to make this very consequential. And I decided pretty quickly that that would signal, in fact, something terrible. not only it would be terrible for the New Yorker, it would be terrible for businesses, that it would signal the life magazineization of the New Yorker. We live in a very different time now. The internet was not in play then. What does print mean going forward for Vogue? Chloe, in fact, mentioned that she wants to have fewer print editions. Why?

Well, I think we all look at print as something that is collectible and something you might, want to archive and hold on to. And I think it also has to represent a newsbreaking moment. Like, you need a reason to put somebody on the cover for any of the stories that you might be running inside. And I think that's what Chloe was talking about, that it has to feel in a way more important, more substantial, and separate from the day-to-day newsbreaking stories that we put up on your site or our site. But it's not purely a decision about decline of print advertising or it's not a purely business decision. I think it's the right decision and I think there's a lot of different factors that play into it.

And obviously it's something that we all need to sit down and talk about and figure out what the right path is going forward. But I think it comes from the idea that print has to feel more substantial and more important. I mean, it's our runway show. If you think about how many people actually go to a Vuitton fashion show, it's between four and 800 people. But then it goes out to millions and millions. And I think instantly by Instagram. Instantly on live stream, whatever it may be.

And I think print has that same responsibility. You're giving a message. You're making news. You're giving your vision. But it doesn't necessarily have to be over and over. again, many, many times a year. I mean, I think most of the big designers probably have six or seven shows a year, which is already a lot. You're a very politically engaged person and a very politically aware person, and it's no news to you that the world right now is in so many ways in really bad

condition. How do you make a case that fashion is important in the midst of all that? Well, I think fashion is always important. It's a question of self-expression and a statement about yourself and, you know, whether it's a loud logo you might choose to put on yourself or as something with a color. So I think fashion can say so many different things. And forgive me, David, but how boring it would be if everybody was just wearing a dark suit and a white shirt all the time? I think people are individuals and they ought to have able to express themselves. And it's a form of creativity. And that's why we need fashion and we need great designers. For decades, you've been known as the editor with exacting control over every spread, every...

Well, that's very much exaggerated. Is it? Yes. I don't buy that. You don't say yes or no on everything that's in vogue? Up to a point. I mean, you know, I oversee so many different vokes now that it's impossible to have that kind of detail. I think it's really important to surround yourself with people whom you admire and that you

respect. I really rely on the editors that we have there to, I can say, I don't think this looks so great, but they can come right back and say, this is what will work in this culture. So what I mean is, how deeply do you get into other Vogue's, other magazines, either here in the United States or around the world? Yeah, I mean, I, in terms of Vogue, I look at every print issue before it goes to what's hypothetically called the, um, press. And, you know, I will look at their sites. I can't understand all the languages. I look at all their social media, but it's, and I will make suggestions and call and say, are we sure about this or why aren't we doing that? But, you know, there's no way that you can keep up with

every single platform across all the territories, but I certainly keep my eyes out. Did you ever feel like along the way, did you have a time or a year or a moment, you think, enough with this? I can do a lot of things. I can do a lot of things. things. I just enough. I actually know, David, because I love what I do. And I grew up, as you know, in a family of journalists where we were always being dragged home from vacation holidays, as we would say in the UK, because some news was happening. And in those days, you couldn't do email or Zooms. You had to be there. And my dad was someone who always had to be there. He had to be in

the newsroom. And that was actually exciting in a way. And our house was full of journalists. politicians and interesting people. And I find that today just as exciting and just as interesting. And I'm always more interested in looking forward than looking back. I do think sometimes we spend too much time on nostalgia. How do you mean? I think people always ask what was that based on or what was your inspiration. And sure, people have inspirations.

and they have unconscious thoughts in their heads, but true creative design. I'm talking about the fashion world, true creative designers, and I'm sure it's the same with your world. It's original. It comes from their mind, not from somebody else's mind.

Maybe they had some influences, but the idea is theirs. And when I work with Andrew Bolton, who's the chief curator at the Metropolitan Museum, we work very closely together every year on the exhibitions, and it's so fascinating and exciting and interesting to see how his mind works and how the ideas form. And yes, he reads a lot, he looks at a lot.

But in the end, the original thinking is entirely Andrews. So to me, that's a great artist. I wonder how you felt when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez arrived at the Metball in a white dress slathered in the... with the slogan, Tax the Rich. Yes. Well, I'll tell you story about that, David. She was actually sitting at my table, and I stand in the receiving line, and I don't see the people arriving on the carpet.

I don't have a secret live stream coming, being zoomed into my earphone. I'm just standing there, shaking everybody's hands, saying, thank you for coming, blah, blah, blah. I said, you know, thank you for coming, and she went by. And then I went up to her before we all sat down at the table. I said, I just love your dress because I'd only seen her from the front. And it wasn't until the next day that I understood what had happened. So fortunately, I had a wonderful evening. And when you saw it later, how did you feel?

Well, you know, that's something going back to what we were talking about before. I think everybody uses fashion in different ways. And obviously, that was something that was important to her. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, and I'm speaking to. today with Anna Wintour. We'll continue in just a moment. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick, and I've been speaking today with Anna Wintor, who's stepping back from editing the U.S. edition of Vogue after nearly 40 years. Chloe Mell will be the new head of editorial content there.

Years ago, when I was new at the job of editing a magazine, I asked one of Anna Wintor's deputies why she commanded such respect. The answer was this. It's because she knows what she wants. Over time, I learned what that meant. It wasn't that she knew everything or knew better than everybody, but she had a clear sense of what she wanted her publication to be about. And she had a determination, particularly now when the media business is unpredictable, to put it mildly, how to figure out the future, to make things work, to make mistakes, and yet try again. Wintour comes from a distinguished journalism family. Her brother is an editor and a reporter, and her father was editor of a London newspaper.

He helped steer Anna into a career in fashion, and she began working as a teenager. Your father was at the London Evening Standard. Yes. Your brother, is he back from Iran? He just came back, yes, safely, thank you. Is that the Guardian? Yeah.

Journalism is in your blood, and you found your place in it, God knows. How did you—the most interesting part of any biography for me is not the later big triumphs, as interesting as they can be, but how somebody becomes themselves, in a sense, how they invent themselves. When you think about that, how you became the anewinter that at least the public knows and understands, where do you think that all came from? I think I was so lucky, as we were discussing before, in my upbringing and meeting all these people and knowing that I wanted to work in journalism, in media,

but being very aware of my father's success in fleeting. as it was then called in Fleet Street and not wanting to be part of his world and trying to make my own mark and filling out all those stupid school forms that you have to do and ask my dad, well, what shall I fill in when you write what you want to be? This is a true story. He said, well, you just write. You want to be editor of Vogue. No. Yes. Age what?

I don't know. 13. So I wrote that in and then I felt confident. And yes, this was something that I could work towards. And the other thing, my first job is working in London. Like, there's no money. There's no staff. There's no teams.

You have to learn how to do everything. What was the job? My first job, I worked at Harper's Queen. And I was in the fashion department. And you had to cover the market, go on shoots, write the captions, lay it out, go to events, go to the shows. It was just, you know, the original sort of multitasker. And I think that. Did you have to know how to operate a needle and thread or sewing?

Yeah, I was never any good at that. No heming for you. Yes, awful. So when I came to the States and, you know, there was a shoe editor and a underwear editor and a fabric editor. It was also siloed. I felt very confident because I sort of knew how to do everything. And that was the best training. But wait, you determined your final, not final destination, as it turns out.

It was helpful. At that early age, I'm going to be the editor of Vogue, which is a little bit like saying, I'm going to play shortstop for the Yankees, and that was Derek Jeter. Well, it was a goal. It wasn't, you know, it was a goal to work towards. And obviously, there were many ups and downs along the way, including getting fired from Harper's Bazaar, because I was told I would never understand the American market. So. Tell me about the firing. It was very brief. It was very brief. Very brief. The conversation. Very, very brief.

What was to start? We've all done it. How do you do it? How do I try and be kind and sortful and, you know, listen to what people have to say. But I was not given that. I was basically told to leave. So, but I think everyone should be fired once. You probably never have been fired, David.

I've only had two jobs so far, so much. But it helps you get everything into proportion. and pick myself up and eventually landed at New York Magazine where my multitasking really came into full use because there wasn't anyone there that understood anything that I was doing and I was very lucky to work for Ed Kozner, who was a wonderful editor and gave me free reign and that's where I caught Alexander Lieberman, the editorial director,

Condinasse I and then I moved over to American Bo. I hope this is not a sexist question. Maybe we could ask it of men, too. I hope we do. How did you develop your look and why? Well, for my hair, it was always pretty much this way. It's not a Louise Brooks. No, some British hairdresser decided they were going to experiment on me,

and they cut it into three layers. And it was honestly the worst haircut you've ever seen in your entire life. So I think I wore a hat for a year. and then after that I resolved not to cut my hair except this way ever again. And, I mean, the glass is just, because I'm very short-sighted, but they also help me get through situations. Were you bored to death? You said that, not me.

I did. I think I'm going to take it up. Another thing that you're known for, and is your ability to do about 3,000 things in a given day. Give me how your days typically go. When do you get up? What do you do and how is it carried out? Well, I get up really early, 435 o'clock, and I read online the papers, all the English papers and the Times. And then I have a lovely walk through Washington Square Park where you see a very interesting slice of life and go to the gym, and then I run back. You were a runner when you were a kid, right?

Yeah, I was. A good one. Yeah, my grandfather was a very, very fast runner. He ran for Harvard, and I was always being encouraged to go into serious training. But I just, I didn't take that pass. It was the 60s in London. So I took another pass. I took another pass, many other paths. And then, you know, I go to the office and then the day starts.

And then the day starts. And you've said you'd never write a book about your life. life. Never. Never. I don't think on that interesting and...

Okay, that's where you're wrong. Thank you, David. But I really, I don't, I just, it's not a story I want to tell. Because it's too personal,

it digs too deep, or is you're bored with it. You're bored with the past. The past is done, and I can't rewrite it. And of course, there's lots of wonderful things about it too,

but it's just not something that has of any remote interest to me. I'm going to write the story of your life, David? I don't think so. And there you go. I'd like to learn something new, like Chinese or something. So there was a time that even unschooled people like me knew about or a little bit about designers of huge influence, at least knew their names or a kind of sketch of what they did, Lagerfeld.

Mutiaprata was still very much around. Gagliano, Mark Jacobs, still much around. Suddenly, nearly all the fashion houses are led by young or younger designer. whose names are not particularly well-known. But they will be. And many as them are. And not many are women either. No, that's it.

So how do you assess this new scene that... Well, it's... It's... It's... It's... One moves, and then it's like a pack of cards. Why? Well, because one designer goes from A to B,

and then that leaves an opening, and then somebody else is slotted in, and then there's another opening. But it is totally true, that this is the first... Simon and I, that I can ever remember where we had so many openings in so many high-profile houses. But it's also incredibly, and I think it would be a very creative moment, because if you talk to these designers, of course, they're very aware that they're all making their debuts in

the next few weeks. So all eyes, not just on them, but are all of them. And I think they will all make each other better. Who are you most keenly watching? All of them. I mean, I think they all bring different different points of views, some degrees of experience, some brand new, some less known, some known. But what I think is great about all of them is that they are very original thinkers. And I think that they will not be defined. They will respect, but they will not be, like Chloe, they will respect but not be defined by their past. I think Jonathan Anderson at Dior is going to be an incredible, have.

an incredible show, an incredible run at Dior. I'm very, very excited to see Machia Blasey at Chanel. He was at Betega before, and Jack and Lazaro, who are Americans, going to Le Hervais. So, I mean, those are just three. I mean, Sarah Burton, a woman at Gervonchy. She worked for McQueen for so many years. Louise Trotter at Batega. I mean, it's just a long, long list.

And then there's the designers like Demna that was at Balenciaga, has now gone to Gucci. and Pierre Paolo, who was at Valentino, has now gone to Valenciaga. So it's, you know, it's snakes and ladders everywhere. But my colleague Rebecca Mead recently profiled Jonathan Anderson. He's now, as you say, at Dior. And he told Rebecca that he prefers to think of fashion houses, not as luxury bastions, but as cultural brands. He says, luxury is elite.

and she wants to keep luxury at arm's length, he told her. How do you view luxury at this point? Is it something that you embrace? Is it something that... Well, I hate that word, don't you? Well, it rarely enters my thinking, but go ahead. It doesn't mean anything. It seems like a sort of dated...

It sounds to my ear like expensive. Yeah, and it feels dated to me and something that... I think I like the idea of... creativity and what does that mean and how you bring in a community in all kinds of different levels, whether it's couture or runway or a pair of sneakers, you're investing in somebody's creativity and vision. And to me, that's much more interesting than the idea of luxury. I mean, I don't really even know what that word means. It's so overused. I think it's lost. It's hot. In some ways, it might be, it might be an illusion, but the,

economy is riding pretty high, and yet a lot of fashion houses are very anxious about the economy. Well, there's many reasons for that. I mean, I think, first of all, there's been so much change that I think a lot of the normal customers are waiting because they want to wait and see what the new designers are going to bring. They don't want to seem like they're behind or they're not in step with whatever direction a designer might be going, or they were someone who liked what the old designer did and they're not sure yet about the new ones. So there are lots of different reasons. But I also think that the industry has been very hard hit by the tariffs.

So Trump's tariffs are going to affect things. They already have because people would move their businesses out of China and into India. And then you saw what happened in India. So it's hard to be able to plan long term. And also the fashion industry already has 12 and a half percent. tariffs on a lot of what they produce. So to stack it again is going to make it even more difficult, particularly for the smaller businesses. You have made Vogue a political magazine in many ways over the years. You and you yourself were a political person. You've been involved in the fundraising and

more for Hillary Clinton and for the Democratic Party in general. Tell me about that decision. I think my personal values are very important to me, and I also have tried to be balanced in our coverage. And I also believe that what I believe many of our audiences do as well. So it's a tough time for Democrats. There's no question. And hopefully somebody will emerge in the not too distant future that will challenge. our current administration. Do you see anything of that?

Well, I've been impressed by Governor Newsom. I think he's certainly making a stand, and obviously I'm sure there'll be many other candidates that will emerge, hopefully soon. Hopefully soon. It seems pretty grim at the moment, though. Well, we have time. There was a movie that you may have heard of called

The Devil Wears Prada. And at first, and we didn't, know each other very well when that came out. Connie Ness had a kind of different alignment that it does now. And I should say, it's changed largely because of you and having editors' meetings, and the editors got to know each other a lot better

than they used to, which is a gift. When that first came out, were you hurt by it, and then you seemed to embrace it in a certain way? Well, I went to the premiere, wearing Prada, completely

having no idea what the film was going to be about. And I think that the fashion industry were very sweetly concerned for me about the film that it was going to paint me in some kind of difficult light. Cartoonish. Yes, caricature. But first of all, it was Merrill Street, which fantastic. And then I went to see the film, and I found it highly enjoyable and very funny.

So, Mutu and I... I talk about it a lot. Mutual Prada, yeah. And I say to her, well, it was really good for you. And you can imagine what she says back. But, you know, in the end... No, I can't. What did she say back?

But, no, I think, listen, it had a lot of humor to it. I had a lot of wit. It had Merrill Street. I mean, it was Emily Blunt. I mean, they were all amazing. And in the end, I thought it was a fair shot. At a certain point, celebrities came to the cover of Vogue.

Was that something you did with hesitation? You did it pretty early on. I think Madonna might have been one of the first. Yeah, I felt that times were changing, that time was different, and that our audiences, our readers, were looking at fashion not just through the lens of a model,

as was primarily on the cover before that, although, of course, if you think back to the days of Mrs. Vreeland and others, they did, you know, they had people like Candace Berg and Chloe's mother or... Who played the editor of Vogue on Sex and the City. Or Mia Farrow. I mean, it wasn't unheard of, but I think that we, we recognize a change. We saw a change. And Madonna of all the many celebrities that we've had on the cover of Vogue, She certainly loved in epitomized fashion and was fearless with it and had fun with it. And it just felt like the right time.

And I remember being on this plane and sitting next to a straight-laced, straight wearing a suit gentleman. And he asked me what I did. And I was telling him and he said, well, Vogue means to me Audrey Hepburn, Catherine Herbert, never Madonna. And that made me think, time to change. What are you most proud of having published at Vogue? I couldn't possibly choose one piece or one story or one cover, David. I think it was quite moving being in the meeting this morning, talking to all my colleagues about how I felt about Chloe

and what a great job that she was doing. And I think the thing I'm the most proud of is bringing. is bringing in over so many years different talent, writers, photographers, videographers, editors to Vogue. I mean, to me, I'm sure you feel to some degree the same way. It's about who you surround yourself with. Entirely. And in the end, that's by far the most important accomplishment to me.

Were you emotional at this meeting? Well, I've been thinking about it for such a long time, but, you know, you? No, I was actually thrilled and excited and happy for Chloe and excited for myself to look at things in a different way. Does it mean that you'll have more free time? I can't imagine Anna Winter with free time. Well, I think I'll have... Only two jobs now. Yes, two jobs, two jobs, two jobs. But I am remaining fully committed as theater and tennis advisor to Vogue. That's going to be my next big chapter.

Okay, I'm holding you to that. Now, I think we're now ready for what we call the lightning round. Do you ready? Yes, of course. Okay. Who is the greatest fashion designer of your era as editor? David, I only look towards the future. What was the most triumphant or influential fashion show of that era?

Ditto. Most lamentable fashion trend of your era? Day glow. Okay. True or false, Jeff Bezos was interested in buying Condonance. Well, actually, I heard that he called you about that. False. Good turn.

You are actually, just as true or false, you are actually thrilled when assistants move at a glacial pace. Nobody at Vogue moves at a glacial pace, least of all my assistants. This is the most important question of all, Anna. Finally, I wore a decent shirt and an actual jacket today in deference to you and the occasion. But still, I think it's fair to say that I'm not known for my impeccable sense of sense of style, Anna, is it hopeless? Where can I possibly begin? David, I'm very touched that you wore a jacket, but I really like you in those New Yorker sweatshirts.

There, I was living up to the sitorial standards of the late Sineau House. Thank you for having me. Anna, thank you. Anna Winter has been editor of Vogue since 1988. She'll remain the chief content officer for Condi Nast, which also publishes The New Yorker. And if you missed any of our conversation, you can find the video on the New Yorkers YouTube page. That's the New Yorker Radio Hour for today. Thanks for listening. Hope you enjoyed the show. See you next time. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme

music was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of Tune Yards, with additional music by Louis Mitchell. This episode was produced by Max Walton, Adam Howard, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, Jared Paul, and Ursula Summer. With guidance for you. from Emily Boutin and assistance from Michael May, David Gable, Alex Barish, Victor Gwan, and Alejandra Deccan. We had additional help this week from Pran Bandy. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.