When perusing such publications, however, it behooves us to recall the admonition of רבי in Pirkei Avos, אל תסתכל בקנקן אלא במה שיש בו, do not gaze at the container, but rather at what is inside it (like the English expression "don't judge a book by its cover"). The fact that a publication is printed on glossy paper, with beautiful graphics, does not mean that everything in it is true, correct, and free of bias.
Recently, in their Shavuos issue, one of the main articles/features was related to the frum Neo-Hasidism movement. Typical of such pieces, it paints the frum world as being void of depth and spirituality, with Rabbi Moshe Weinberger, Rabbi Judah Mischel, & Co. riding up on white horses (donkeys?) to redeem them from their wretched existence with Chasidus, which turns into an unstoppable mass movement, where people become Chasidic and live happily ever after. It gives a breathless report or impression of people allegedly running to learn Chasidus all over, with Chasidic books piled up on every Beis Medrash table.
The problem is however, that it just isn't so in the real world.
The article seems to claim that the movement is conquering the Modern Orthodox/Dati Leumi world (quite debatable of course - growth is not the same as taking something over), but tries to give the impression that the same thing is happening in the Charedi world as well, by talking about one Beis Medrash in Kiryat Sefer (but what about all the others in Kiryat Sefer and elsewhere that are not doing so?). Lemayseh, not only are Tanyas not generally piled up on the tables of the greatest non-Hasidic yeshivas, they are also not piled up on the tables of great Chasidic ones either! In Satmar yeshivas they don't learn Tanya - a bochur might get expelled for doing so. In Sanz, bochurim don't learn Chasidus bichlal either (they want to them to concentrate on regular limudim). I don't think Bobov, Belz, Vizhnitz, Ger, or Skver are much, if at all, different in that regard. And those are just some examples.
Actually, if you look into it, the Mishpacha article is sort of an updated version of an article that appeared on the subject in the O-U's Jewish Action magazine a few years ago. It is clear that the two are closely related by the fact that they have so many things in common, from stories related to multiple personalities featured.
I wonder how the women who wrote the articles supposedly know that tables in batei medrash all over are piled up with Tanyas. Did they perhaps dress up as men, a la Yentl the yeshiva bachur, and take a survey of yeshiva tables? Or did they just get that from the Neo-Chasidus P.R. Dept.?
One also wonders how accurate the article is when it gets some elementary facts wrong (e.g. it is Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg, not Weinberger, and Rabbi Binyomin Eisenberger is not a Chasidishe Rebbe - his background is Oberlander Hungarian, dress is Litvish, he learned in Litvish yeshivas, I believe he doesn't even wear a gartel, even if he might flirt with some aspects of Chasidism).
A good percentage of the Mishpacha staff is Chasidic or has significant Chasidic ties (even if they don't always wear it on their sleeve - see their Shuls supplement this past Pesach for more, for starters), so naturally they like to publish such pieces. And it is not just one piece. Related pieces have continued for weeks, and tweets are also part of the campaign.
Another problem with these pieces is their equating "penimiyus haTorah" - inner Torah - with Chasidus. So all non-Chasidim are engaged in externalities, their Torah and mitzvos are external because they don't learn Tanya, huh? Zeyer shein, very nice, how beautiful and generous of them.
With regard to פנימיות התורה (an expression that comes from Lubavitch I think) - an expression used for סודות התורה and other hidden things comes to mind which may be quite fitting here as well - those who talk, don't know, and those who know, don't talk.
Bottom line - good P.R. piece, but reality and P.R. is not necessarily one and the same thing.