I agree the language is problematic for non-technical viewers, but at the same time these are difficult concepts to explain to non-technical people, and explain the details of what it can't do is obviously much less compelling than focusing on what it can do.
But that's not the problem, is it? It's not that IBM is trying to explain something difficult. Rather, if IBM was trying to be honest, the box that won Jeopardy would be called Watson, and the box they're now trying to sell everyone and their dog would be called "Whitney, Watson's big sister" or whatever. At the very least, "Watson the third".
By calling it the exact same name, you are trying to convince us it's the exact same thing just with more training. Which it's not.
Others mentioned poisoning the well; round here the expression is "pissing in the well", which I think fits much better.
It might be easy to understand what Charlie really meant when you are already familiar with the project, but the non-technical viewer will walk away thinking of Watson as a single, coherent entity sitting in an IBM vault somewhere. Conflating ML-based expert systems with anthropomorphic AI is farcical, supporting the accusations that IBM is overselling its product. It is also irresponsible, because it fuels the idea in the popular mind that machine learning is creating independent intelligences rather than mere tools.