Yes, but the more important thing is that murder is wrong, not that someone's a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is the most minor of malfeasances.

A smoker who writes a column that smoking is bad is still doing good writing.

This argument is very common against people with fringe political beliefs. "If you don't believe in property rights, why do you have a car?"

That's different. If you don't believe in property rights, you think that the law is fundamentally broken, not that any individual who owns property is evil. This article is basically doing the latter, which is why it's difficult to take seriously.

It's common against everyone. "You believe in climate change? Yet you sometimes use a car? Checkmate!"

...which doesn't invalidate the argument.

A charge of hypocrisy is a straight-up ad hominem. It might make you mistrust the person making the argument, but it doesn't say anything about the facts.

This post is completely correct: yes, you're correct and you're a hypocrite.

But: so what?

When I read the news, the last thing I care about is the mores of the news organisation. Reporting on a politician pilfering taxes? Couldn't care less if the reporter panama papered his way through life. Writing about a politician illegally snooping on citizens? Don't give a damn if you got that info by illegally snooping on the politician. Is the news true? That's all I want to know.

I read the news for the news. Are the facts solid? Good. Are you crooked? Don't care.

> then you might be correct

The comment I was replying to seemed to indicate that the Buzzfeed author's stance was incorrect. This is a fine point, but really important, and I think it gets lost in public discourse a lot these days: hypocricy does not invalidate an argument.

Whether or not you are a hypocrite has no bearing on whether or not what you are saying is correct.