Gabriel Sherman's article on the journalistic methods of The National Enquirer is a good one. Fundamentally, it's no surprise that The Enquirer lands scoops papers cant get because the Enquirer employs methods papers won't touch. But they're not dishonest methods. A normal reporter gets good stories because they have good sources. They develop those sources over years of engagement with an issue, or through the help of a well-connected colleague. But that tends to only touch a certain type of person: A powerful, or semi-powerful, person who wants to get their side of the story out for its own sake. The Enquirer pays people to be their sources. So you get information from folks who don't know reporters and aren't interested in divulging their secrets in service of the common good. It gives you access to a whole new realm of information, and there are times when I wish some enterprising organization was using those methods to dig into public malfeasance rather than private improprieties. Indeed, "respectable" journalism has something like this in awards (that come with hefty cash prizes) for whistleblowers and laws protecting their jobs, which basically serve the same function but do so far less efficiently.
