Before I saw your post, I bought the magazine from a news stand because of the article on the cover. I barely had time to skim the article and now I've misplaced the magazine. Meanwhile, when I did look at it, I was rather unimpressed with the objectivity of the article.
Basically, it looks like they got a bunch of guys, most of whom fairly obviously prefer SUVs and performance cars, to drive about 3,000 miles in both the normal Civic and the Hybrid version. They compared gas mileage between the two and did the math and figured how much money you'd save at current prices from the difference in the gas mileage and compared that to how much money the hybrid option cost and said it wasn't worth it, since you'd have to drive over 100,000 miles to make up the difference.
It ignored the difference in pollution, and it ignored the fact that a person who spends time with a car with the mpg readout will learn how to improve his gas mileage. A committee of people, each spending a little time with the car won't do that as well and will get worse gas mileage. They also assume gas prices won't go up, and people won't want to keep a car for 100,000 miles.
All of these are reasonable assumptions for the average American driver. A normal American driver doesn't care about gas mileage, drives for speed, ignores the instruments, and replaces their car when it needs new tires. Meanwhile, most of these assumptions are inaccurate for the market of people interested in the Hybrid.
I wish I had the article with me so I could more accurately comment on it. I apologize for any inaccuracies. I will note that the magazine was saturated with advertisements for SUVs and muscle cars.
Forgot i didn't crosspost about the article when I first got the mag a month ago... I only discussed it on the yahoo honda hybrid group. SOrry to leave you all in limbo, those who aren't part of both communities.