Yes, I don't use either of them. But there is a link to news on Buzzfeed.com, so I assume there is a certain level of mix between the different contents for the readers?
After reading the entirety of those two articles, it seems the consensus is the story was good enough to prove it is possible for a well written story to come out of the National Enquirer, as evidenced by the fact that they did break a huge story. I'm aware that this evidence does not match what you feel about the National Enquirer but I disagree that not ignoring evidence to backup popular bias is a flaw in journalism as a field.
As your Guardian link says, the National Enquirer did not actually win a Pulitzer.
If you think of the prize as being given for results rather than the process, it’s not that wild: they broke a major story that affected a presidential election. People occasionally find something valuable while digging through the trash, which seems like a pretty apt analogy.
Likewise, the Nobel prize for grapheme was effectively for scribbling with a pencil on Scotch Tape and repeatedly pulling it apart. I used to do this in elementary school, but does it cheapen the Nobel Prize? I’d argue no, the prize is——-in part——-for realizing what you’ve got.
