The use of quotes to question the authenticity or true nature of something is accepted in English. You could have said "journalism" and I wouldn't have jumped on you.
On "article" though it's inappropriate. The other comment notwithstanding, an article is an article, no matter if it's written by a journalist, an amateur, or a monkey banging its head on a keyboard. There is zero credibility implied by the word.
Example:
> The "food" from that restaurant was awful
Correct usage. You are (humorously, snarkily) questioning that what you received was food at all.
> The food from that "restaurant" was awful
Incorrect. No matter what you thought of the food, the fact is that it is a restaurant (ie, a place that dispenses food, with no consideration of quality implied). This usage betrays a lack of sophistication and should be avoided.
Incorrect. No matter what you thought of the food, the fact is that it is food (ie, something that can be digested as a source of nutrition). This usage betrays a lack of sophistication and should be avoided.
> The food from that "restaurant" was awful
Correct usage. You are (humorously, snarkily) questioning if the establishment you visited qualifies as a restaurant.
Based on your explanation I would say both of those are valid, depending upon one's own personal definition of "restaurant" is.
If one thinks of a restaurant as a business that accepts money to serve you food then the comparison is the same. No matter what you thought of the restaurant, the fact is they took your money and served you food.
Food is food, with no consideration of quality implied, so that doesn't quite work as an explanation of why it would be right around food, but not around restaurant.
On "article" though it's inappropriate. The other comment notwithstanding, an article is an article, no matter if it's written by a journalist, an amateur, or a monkey banging its head on a keyboard. There is zero credibility implied by the word.
Example:
> The "food" from that restaurant was awful
Correct usage. You are (humorously, snarkily) questioning that what you received was food at all.
> The food from that "restaurant" was awful
Incorrect. No matter what you thought of the food, the fact is that it is a restaurant (ie, a place that dispenses food, with no consideration of quality implied). This usage betrays a lack of sophistication and should be avoided.