>This is probably harder to judge automatically (i.e. using LLMs) though, maybe that's why they haven't done it.

Absolutely. Firstly, it is entirely possible if there are investigative notes and findings available on a real life event, it might very well have been trained on the actual article. If the model is trained on it, it might just replicate it.

Plus, this might expose how some LLMs can still cook up stuff even when given facts to rely on. Some of these are more notorious than others.

Like Perplexity a year plus ago did that quite a bit for me, anecdotally speaking. It has become a lot better though.

Then even writing what some might consider Pulitzer prize winning is a subjective task.