They've got good writers. They use compelling cover art. So why does Radar continue to elude mainstream America? Maybe there's something in a name ... or maybe it is cursed.

This week the media buzz is about Us Weekly's cover story on Scarlett Johansson's purported nose job, including somewhat dubious photo proof. (For what it's worth, I don't think she had her nose done; she had her boobs done.) Scarlett and her publicist fired back with denials and threats of lawsuits, rocketing UW into the stratosphere. True or not, it's the kind of publicity that sells lots of magazines.

Too bad it didn't do the same for Radar when they ran the same story in their December/January issue. They chose to put Nicole Kidman's petrified Botox face on their cover; maybe that's where they went wrong. It's no big secret that she's had work done - it's the shocker of Scarlett being accused of surgical shenanigans that made the Us cover such a hit. Radar used the same shot, but within the article. It was a good piece, but like the medium in which it was published, it escaped much notice.

It must be rough for Radar's publishers to see Us Weekly's similar story getting all the glory - and more publicity than a hundred publicists could generate. It's too bad - Radar is a much livelier read. Less pictures, more words. Guess it's not for everyone. Perhaps that's why Scarlett missed it the first time around.