No, the journalists are right. Global warming refers to the average temperature of the earth increasing, and the modern usage of course implies that it is primarily due to human emissions of greenhouse gasses.
A direct consequence of increasing the temperature of the earth is disrupting weather patterns and changing local climates. There is no global warming of the magnitude we're experiencing without climate change. This of course is a little confusing, as people have trouble understanding why record cold temperatures can still be set while the global mean temperature increases. There is a variance around the mean temperature, and that variance may increase as the mean increases.
I disagree with the decision to move from referring to global warming (which is a PR softening of global heating) to climate change, as it sounds even more pleasant.
Conversely, the modern usage of climate change implies anthropogenic global warming, but again, the waters can be muddled buy saying obvious things like 'the climate has changed before' - thus trying to weasel out of the "anthropogenic global warming" part.
Sure. Global warming (as defined in literal dictionary terms) does not necessarily imply climate change, which is why its such a poor term for what is being discribed. Sunspot cycles are one such example of global warming that is neither weather, nor a change in climate. Semantics perhaps, but I expect journalists to get the details right.
There's also just too much opinion for my taste. Things like "prompting widespread despair" and "suggesting _____" are subjective and hyperbolic. I feel they actually damage the credibility of a criticism that could easily and effectively be made on the basis of science alone.