My grumpy old man moments are mainly about language use, and how the retreat from accuracy can easily slide into a retreat from truth.
Some recent examples from American news coverage:-
Michael Flynn famously resigned about a year ago. Without checking, I suspect Trump of having said, "I had to fire MF," and I've certainly heard this version of events repeated by cable news anchors. I would've thought that there is sufficient difference between resigning and being fired for people to maintain a distinction between the two actions.
Another one to lay at the door of Trump is his use of the slur, "fake news." Pre-Trump, this term was used for false stories deliberately fabricated in order to trick people into believing lies. It's now being used for any inaccuracy in reporting, or, in Trump's hands, any news he doesn't like. We should be careful not to follow his example and so lose another useful distinction - that between fake news/hoaxes and misguided or ill-informed reporting.
Since the Parkland massacre, I've heard the AR-15 gun refered to as a "weapon of mass destruction." Surely this is a term that's used to refer to bombs and similar powerful ordinance. Wasn't Iraq invaded because Saddam Hussein was thought to be stockpiling weapons of mass destruction? I always assumed that meant more than just a few rifles.
Not sure off-hand what the correct term for a rapid-fire gun is, but perhaps "assault weapon" is a good way to go, before yet another clear distinction in meaning is blurred by the misuse of language.
Well, thank you for bearing with me while I soapbox, but I guess you enter this thread at your peril, right?