I really don't get this reaction, and it seems very common. I don't really read the Atlantic much any more, haven't for a long time, but that's because I don't read much of any news periodicals. Nonetheless, for a periodical, they have always presented a pretty broad range of views, and the range tends to always be somewhat middle of the road. So no extreme takes on any particular subject, but within the range of what they publish, it's very common for one writer to disagree with another.

This seems to be getting painted by a lot of you as a bad thing. The views presented here don't represent the views of the Atlantic. They represent the views of the writer. And other writers also published by the Atlantic disagree. Some of them think you should be afraid. Some of them think you should not be afraid. That isn't hypocrisy or "rich." It's a publication showing you a range of views from people who disagree on subjects that are far from settled. How is this supposed to be a bad thing? Do you want the editorial board to instead only publish takes that all agree and present only one side of any subject?