>The proof by authority criticism is for the implied "I've been right in the past (I even got awarded for that) therefore I must be right now as well".

Or, you know, rather merely the implied:

"I'm just some random conspiracy theorist, some fresh of the bus aspiring journalist, or some blogger that got in over their head, I've got a proven track record of working with diffucult and covered/denied stories, being proven right, doing succesful investigate journalism, and bringing up major stories. Pulitzer level track record."

Good points and I mostly agree here… important to have healthy skepticism but I still don’t think previous well-deserved recognition should be deemed irrelevant in areas where trust plays a big factor (like where where anonymous sources can’t be verified).

If there are verifiable counter-claims/evidence then that’s where the action should be.