I don't see how it's dishonest.
Whatever their actual alignment and/or edgy-troll status, they still claimed to be aligned with ISIS, just as the article says.
Whatever their actual alignment and/or edgy-troll status, they still claimed to be aligned with ISIS, just as the article says.
Which is to say, when the subject of an article claims something, you should probably not print it verbatim without thinking it through at least a little bit, and maybe determine the credibility of what's being said.
It is not the job of a journalist to regurgitate sources blindly.
Otherwise... hey journalists, I am literally the second coming of Jesus, you guys should interview me and tell people I'm the Son of God.
Right, and in that case the article would probably read "potatolicious, who claims to be the second coming of Jesus..." *
Their claim of alignment with ISIS is, in itself, a part of the story. They are reporting that the claims have been made, not that the claims are factually correct.
* This actually happened on British TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlSj_imnv7o
You seem to be asking journalists to say "he claims to be the son of god (but he isn't, obvs)" which is asking th journalists to provide information they don't have.
The article claims that the website was hacked by a group claiming to be aligned with the Islamic State.
> hey journalists, I am literally the second coming of Jesus, you guys should interview me and tell people I'm the Son of God.
Good journalism would be to report that you are claiming to be Jesus. Which is what happened here; they reported a claim of affiliation, not the affiliation as a fact. It would actually be bad journalism for the reporter to take a position on your divinity (or an unknown groups actual affiliation with IS).
Just reporting ( alarming / scandalous ) claims have been usually called tabloid journalism.