If the New Yorker had used the term uncritically then I would agree with you.  But they didn&#x27;t, they carefully laid out why the term isn&#x27;t clearly defined and hence why it isn&#x27;t in common use among professionals.  That&#x27;s exactly what I would hope any publication would do when a term has currency in the news but the reading public might not know why it&#x27;s a flawed term.