I've been critical of reporters for ignoring this hypocracy, but I don't think it applies here. The reporter doesn't control what the Washington Post does; the

I've been critical of reporters for ignoring this hypocracy, but I don't think it applies here. The reporter doesn't control what the Washington Post does; they can only choose what they report on. I am critical of reporters who refuse to acknowledge that conflict of interest, or who only report on the Facebook/Google side of things without acknowledging that this is something that applies to the web (and news sites) in general. But I don't feel like that's what happened here, the author is reporting on web tracking in general, and giving mostly accurate information, regardless of the fact that consumers who follow it will also be blocking some of the WP's own trackers. I do kind of get annoyed that journalists aren't doing more to champion ad blockers, given that they are one of the easiest, simplest steps someone can take to reduce tracking. But... baby steps. Is the WP itself as a business being hypocritical? Sure, but to me that's a very different problem than what I typically see in privacy reporting. I'm more worried about whether or not reporters are willing to include browser tracking and news trackers in the discussion about privacy at all. Is the narrative, "Google is evil", or is it, "we have a structural problem that many, many businesses are complicit in"?