There are two types of journalists (and writers). One (type) that represents the actual meaning of the word itself which is to accurately represent the facts and to expend ones efforts to reach that goal. And the second (type) is your average run-of-the-mill, blind-follower, second-hand, third-hand, fourth-hand (and so on) source journalist (or writer). These unfortunately are present in abundance.

This difference is highlighted greatly in the issue of the ascription of Salafiyyah to the twentieth century Leninist Takfiri Revolutionary movement which was spawned through Qutb's anti-capitalist writings through the notions of "social justice", "state" and "revolution" found in the likes of Milestones and az-Zilal, and which were influenced by Qutb's engrossment in Western Materialist Philosophies for 15 years of his life, and in particular the Socialism of Marx and Engels (the ideological "what") and the "Revolutionary Vanguard" of Lenin (the practical "how"). He just added some Islamic labels to the concepts. He was also influenced by Mawdudi's notions of "Jaahiliyyah" and "Haakimiyyah", and discussions of [Western] "Social Barbarism" found in the works of French Philosopher, Alexis Carrel.

So what was the resultant product from all of this?

A revival of the credo and manifesto of the Kharijites about whom the Prophet Muhammad (alayhis salaam) stated that they would continue to emerge, and would continue to be cut off, up until the Anti-Christ appears amongst their latter-day remnants ( see this article here).

So ascribing 20th Century Leninist Takfiri Kharijites to Salafiyyah is a great academic and intellectual crime and it's an immediate reputation-crumbler. You immediately identify what type of journalist or writer you are dealing with in this particular matter.

We have documented in other articles non-Muslim writers who display the type of desired scrupulousness in their research. You can refer to such quotes in these articles: