The problem with reporting on the DPRK is that information is extremely limited on what is actually going on there. Most reports come from defectors, and said defectors are notoriously dubious in their accounts, something the WikiPedia page on Media Coverage of North Korea spells out quite clearly. These defectors are also held in confined cells for around 6 months before being released to the public in the ROK, in... unkind conditions, and pressured into divulging information. Additionally, defectors are paid for giving testemonials, and these testimonials are paid more the more severe they are. From the Wiki page:

Felix Abt, a Swiss businessman who lived in the DPRK, argues that defectors are inherently biased. He says that 70 percent of defectors in South Korea are unemployed, and selling sensationalist stories is a way for them to make a living.

Side note: there is a great documentary on the treatment of North Korean defectors titled Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul, which interviews North Korean defectors and laywers legally defending them, if you're curious.

Because of these issues, there is a long history of what we consider legitimate news sources of reporting and then walking back stories. Even the famous "120 dogs" execution ended up to have been a fabrication originating in a Chinese satirical column, reported entirely seriously and later walked back by some news outlets. The famous "unicorn lair" story ended up being a misunderstanding:

In fact, the report is a propaganda piece likely geared at shoring up the rule of Kim Jong Eun, North Korea's young and relatively new leader, said Sung-Yoon Lee, a professor of Korean studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Most likely, North Koreans don't take the report literally, Lee told LiveScience.

"It's more symbolic," Lee said, adding, "My take is North Koreans don't believe all of that, but they bring certain symbolic value to celebrating your own identify, maybe even notions of cultural exceptionalism and superiority. It boosts morale."

These aren't tabloids, these are mainstream news sources. NBC News reported the 120 dogs story. Same with USA Today. The frequently reported concept of "state-mandated haircut styles", as an example, also ended up being bogus sensationalism. People have made entire videos going over this long-running sensationalist misinformation, why it exists, and debunking some of the more absurd articles.

As for Radio Free Asia, it is US-government founded and funded. There is good reason to be skeptical of reports sourced entirely from RFA about geopolitical enemies of the US, especially concerning a hermit country with very little accurate information coming out of it due to its secluded nature. Until we see hard evidence, I don't see why we should trust it, considering the track record of reporting on North Korea.

This does not mean the subject of this article is necessarily false, but it does mean that uncritically accepting it as true when there is a proven track record of outlandish and absurd stories being reported about the DPRK that we should question its validity until proof is provided beyond heresay from a US-government funded media outlet. People are right to distrust the article, and I don't think this is a good hill to die on and ban people over. I don't generally believe anything about the DPRK unless there's hard proof for it because of how notoriously unreliable reporting on it is. You don't have to support the DPRK to question absurd sensationalist articles.