In this specific case, yes, I think they have failed. It's different when you're a non-vegan writing about veganism and critizise non-vegans.
It's not okay to be corrupt and condemn corruption in your article. I can't take your opinion seriously if you don't live at all by the values you seem to protect or preach for in your writing...
“ Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).”
Sometimes "whatabouism" is just trying to make sure that the standard being demanded is based in reality and can be maintained by others who find themselves in the same position.
This is different. They are taking part in the same behavior they are calling out as detrimental while being detrimental to the people they supposedly giving advice to.
It’d be like a addiction counselor selling addictive substances to people the counselor is advising about addiction.
But then, they do it because it's supposed to help their patients with their addiction, not because it makes them money.
This isn’t as big a problem as people make it out to be. Their role is to report. If they are corrupt but still report on corruption, then they haven’t failed as journalists, merely as an organisation. If they violate privacy, but still report on it, same deal. We can denounce them while still appreciating their actual reporting.
Problems arise when their nefarious behaviour affects the actual reporting. But, ironically, the more hypocritical they are (i.e. the more they report on the thing they do wrong) the less likely that is.
I’d say with every damnation of a news organisation for their privacy violations, we should in parallel celebrate their dedication to report on that which they are guilty of. The alternative of total silence would be worse.