That had crossed my mind too, but I had always seen Vogue as being more upmarket than the type of magazine that would court publicity in this way. I must have been wrong
I doubt this was done to with an overt intent to pander to the Jordan end of the market, probably framed as being "ironic" and making a "statement".
Plus it leaves a great possibility to turn negative publicity into good when they get their pre prepared hair shirts out, apologize unreservedly, slam some hapless fallgal and do a high profile, high selling editorial on "letting girls be girls".
Thus giving them a quick, highly visible rebirth in a sector of the market that perhaps would be the first to chop the cost of a Vogue off their monthly outgoings and stick with a cheaper mag. But with the apology Vogue would look more attractive than the cheaper mag, cos Vogue has wriggled it's way into being a high profile player into one of the key issues that matters to a fairly large sector of their intended audience.
I doubt if they had gone straight for the "let girls be girls" bandwagon it would have reached such a wide audience, not least cos pre this shoot they would have had to work exceedingly hard at making themselves look truly relevant to the campaign\perspective.
I think once you scratch the polished surface of the fashion world the sleaze quotient (at every level) isn't that hard to find.