It's not hypocritical to cover a wide range of views. Of course not. Even having articles with opposing views from one way to another doesn't necessarily imply a flakiness; it's often a strength in a publication to have a variety of opinions.
Here's an article in yesterday's Daily Mail, complaining about, well you can see for yourself:
OK. But how to illustrate the problem of women feeling that their bodies are their only passport to success? Hmm, it's a tricky one, but they went for:
You might possibly conceive that those images aren't just depicting the horror of women feeling that the only way they could achieve things in life would be to present themselves in a certain sexualised way; and that, just possibly, there could be a sliver of a chance of them being titillating. If you did think that, the next image might be a little bit disturbing:
Hmm. Not so sure about that, after all those other ones. But that may just be me. This quote stood out in the piece:
Yes, it's the internet's fault for damaging young women's expectations. It wouldn't be the case that a family newspaper would present images of barely clothed women to its readers in a way that isn't a million miles away from a lad's mag, would it?
You know what's coming by now. Published today by the Mail comes this:
Ah, 'totty'. A bit of a contrast to that story yesterday, isn't it?
Yes, I read something about that yesterday. Can't remember where it was... ah well. It wouldn't be as if the same publication would slobber over pictures of a woman in a bikini and call her 'totty' in a 'saucy shoot', would it?
Oh, it would.
Thanks to Sadie for the links!