It is literally a recall, though. A recall is a defined process with the NHTSA (and similar processes with other government safety agencies) to track vehicles that are somehow unsafe, and need some kind of service to be made safe again. There's a website that lists them: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls
That can be anything from "these airbags might not open when they're supposed to", like the Takeda problem, or "if water splashed just right on the bottom of the open door, you would have water next to electrical wires which could maybe start a fire" (an issue my car had a few years ago).
Tesla met with the NHTSA and agreed to issue a recall. How is it possibly bad journalism to call it what it is?
What you are describing is a recall in a regulatory and legal sense, but not in a common English sense. In common English, a recall is when the product has to be returned to the manufacturer or taken to a dealer for a fix. In other words, "recall" implies physical movement of a product. I guess you won't agree with me on what "recall" means in common English, and that's fine. And we probably have a deeper disagreement on where words get their meanings from. But I would maintain that a software update is not a "recall." If it is, Microsoft performs a "recall" every time it issues a security patch for Windows.
The update is not the "recall". The update is the remediation. The "recall" is the notification that the product may contain a safety defect in its current configuration, that those products require diagnosis and, potentially, remediation before they are safe again, and that Tesla is legally required to make reasonable efforts to diagnose and remediate safety defects in those products for free [1]. To fix your analogy, a "recall" is more like Microsoft releasing a security advisory or notifying users of a security vulnerability.
As for semantic arguments, obviously the current colloquial usage of the term "recall" means to call for products in use to be removed from use and potentially for remediation. However, the usage of the term in the article is the precise, legal, technical usage of the term meaning what I stated above. This usage and definition by NHTSA predates the colloquial definition and was thus not confusing at the time it was defined, and is both precise and has been precisely used by NHTSA for duration of its usage of the term so their usage of the term has not materially changed in the interim. Therefore, it is both technically, semantically, and culturally correct to use the term "recall" in this specific instance even though the colloquial usage of the term has changed underneath them. This is in contrast with Tesla's usage of the term Autopilot which does correspond with your concerns as it was coined after the colloquial usage had already shifted, and limited effort was made to precisely define and inform potential stakeholders of any differences in terminology with respect to the colloquial usage.
> This usage and definition by NHTSA predates the colloquial definition
I don't think that's right, because countries could "recall" ambassadors, or parliament could be "recalled." Essentially, "recall" means "to bring back." If you aren't bringing something back, it isn't a recall. I don't have time to do the etymological research, so this could be wrong, but it isn't likely. (IIRC I used to be able to access the Oxford English Dictionary for free online, but I'm finding that now I can't.)
That can be anything from "these airbags might not open when they're supposed to", like the Takeda problem, or "if water splashed just right on the bottom of the open door, you would have water next to electrical wires which could maybe start a fire" (an issue my car had a few years ago).
Tesla met with the NHTSA and agreed to issue a recall. How is it possibly bad journalism to call it what it is?