Accusing tabloid newspapers of hypocrisy is like accusing babies of being selfish. That unreasonableness is the whole point. Get exasperated by it if you must, but that's what makes them so compelling.
The heady enjoyment of the Russell Brand & Jonathan Ross saga lies in the fact that it is a slowly played out pantomime of faux-moralism and faux-perversion. It's rather as if a drama teacher had got the Daily Mail and some self-parodyingly 'edgy' comedians in a room, and invited them to act out Freud's theory of the self. We the assembled parents turn up in the school hall, waiting to see how our little darlings have interpreted the conflict between civilisation and the libido. Fortunately our expectations are quite low, but it's the familiarity and naivite of the actors that comforts us.
"I fuck" mutters the unconvincing child playing the id (Brand). "Yes, he really does!" churps the portly pupil dressed in the ego outfit (Ross). "But, but... that's out-rageous!" protests the unpleasant assemblage in the super-ego costume, stamping its feet melodramatically (Daily Mail).
"Aaaah", sigh the parents, enjoying the predictability and safety of the whole occasion. The joy is that they don't even have to take sides. Yes, they recognise the Daily Mail has a role to play in the whole drama, and applaud after it completes its faltering monologues. But they wouldn't want to miss out on the titilation factor of the other two players either (understanding this all too well, The Sun has now moved beyond the moralism phase, lasting all of two days, and returned to its comfort zone). The great thing about the moral high-ground is that, from such a vantage point, you get to see into other people's bedrooms.
(One further endorsement of my Brand/Ross, id/ego analogy: it's interesting to see how Russell Brand has effectively escaped the greatest wrath, on the basis that he is out of control and literally beneath contempt, whereas Ross is having to suffer lashings of shame and punishment.)