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 o

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.