But I was a bit pleased to hear the supposedly moribund print media had sparked the drama. This incident punctuates the transition of baby-boomers to geezer-boomers. Rolling Stone–once the voice of rebellious youth–is now the voice of outraged elders.

a and b together, in my view, played out very similarly to the way it would have gone down with just a. The media reported all the juiciest bits elsewhere; you didn't need to look at the RS article itself to see them – people were curious to see it but all the really inflammatory stuff was widely reported before the article went up.

Without the 24/7 news-cycle, OTOH, this would have played out more slowly and probably would have been delayed until RS hit the stands. But primary source itself quickly became secondary in the larger dynamic.

So, in sum, I say no: access to the article itself made little difference in the current media context.