>Proof by authority? Not sure how this “proof by authority” cynicism applies here. Those events are pretty well established by now and he won a Pulitzer for breaking the story in the face of coverup… isn’t that exactly what high-quality journalism should be? And be rewarded for? There might be an unseemly bragging tone but it doesn’t make it any less true. What’s next - Einstein’s Nobels are also proof by authority?

Relevant (accurate) past recognition should be taken into account as a prior when evaluating uncertain present claims. It doesn’t mean they’re automatically right, and evidence/arguments should be evaluated on their own merit as much as possible, but in the face of opaque fog of war, are you suggesting this journalist should be taken no more seriously than some rando off the street?