I thought that was actually an unusually good piece. I wouldn't die on the hill of whether or not a journalist - especially a TV journalist - ever utters the words "chronic fatigue" instead of "chronic fatigue syndrome," personally. More important to me is that this correspondent was pretty clear on the seriousness of the disease, the dismal chances of recovery, and the fact that available treatments are symptomatic "band-aids."
In my ideal world, of course, I would not have anyone perpetuating the notion that the disease is "vague," ill-defined, extremely variable, etc. Her little explanation of the difference between a sign and a symptom was a good one - but there are symptoms and then there are symptoms. She clearly does need a quick course in the disease definition(s) and especially the CCC - and I'd just about die of happiness if any of the TV talking heads ever put in a SENTENCE about PEM and how severe and unique a symptom of this disease it is.
As for "signs" that anyone could see, I got some very dismal numbers right here on a piece of paper from the Pacific Fatigue Lab that seem quite objectively measured to me. The only self-report involved there was the part where I reported I could no longer pedal. Even that was objectively measurable as "maximal effort" - they could have done that test without me saying a word.