[Theodores]

Actually we have that already in newspapers.

Do you want me to dig out the Daily Mail front page with the President doing a selfie, Miley Cyrus twerking and an X factor winner doing something pointless?

I am proposing something far less objectionable to that which passes as 'normal' for the media.

[elohesra]

There's a reason that the Daily Mail is held up as a figure of ridicule.

EDIT: While amusing, my glib original answer ignores one important point: the Daily Mail sells, and it sells extremely well (it's the most circulated UK newspaper). However, while it's true that the Daily Mail does precisely what the parent poster is proposing, I'd argue that the internet demographic (especially the photo-sharing/social media market) tends to swing younger than the Daily Mail's audience. This will result in young people either:

A) deliberately gaming the site to show offensively contradictory images alongside each other (e.g. something racist next to Mandela) or B) complaining about situations like A

While the Daily Mail does peddle in hypocrisy and bile, it peddles in carefully curated hypocrisy and bile. It knows its market well, and it knows what it can juxtapose. It knows it can rant about paedophilia on one page and then write saucy articles about teenaged royals on the next page, because it knows what its market will tolerate. Allowing a crowdsourced attempt at the same will result in mayhem that targets nobody and offends a lot of people.