> John Steele was paid $2,408,000 for "consulting fees" for the publication of the magazine.

That can't be true, and if true, disgusting. That's half a million more than they claimed to have paid for the totality of their content from the start of publication.

If an editor who made millions from a publication by extracting what must be a majority of its revenue as personal income allowed it to go $180K into arrears with the low-paid providers of its content without even making a personal loan, I'm grossed out.

I'm deciding this isn't true. You should add a link.