If the New Yorker had used the term uncritically then I would agree with you. But they didn't, they carefully laid out why the term isn't clearly defined and h

If the New Yorker had used the term uncritically then I would agree with you. But they didn't, they carefully laid out why the term isn't clearly defined and hence why it isn't in common use among professionals. That'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's a flawed term.