Some of these terms are indeed likely to be aimed at researchers, though I agree that journalism and politicians and charlatans seem to love pulling from shoddy

Some of these terms are indeed likely to be aimed at researchers, though I agree that journalism and politicians and charlatans seem to love pulling from shoddy psychology and making it even worse with their poor understandings of the field. For example, they give a number of papers that cite a p=0.0000 number, which is clearly absurd. p-hacking and dubious misuse of statistical testing aside, it shows a clear lack of understanding of what the p-value even is, and what it tells you, and this is obviously more relevant to researchers than reporters. I can also speak towards personal experience regarding "comorbidity", for a while I knew a grad student who accidentally attached a completely new, incorrect definition to the term by assuming it mean risk-factor. It's certainly a blend of really subtle, interesting mistakes that I can easily see a researcher unfamiliar with the history and philosophy of science making, and some pretty common tropes that are probably more often just stereotypes from the "science" section of popular magazines.