> The article gives βλαύτη as an example of a word whose definition was updated in order to remove offensive language.

Ackcherly, it says "Antiquated and offensive language also gets a makeover." This may be just the antiquated bit, not the offensive one.

The article was written by a journalist. The dictionary was written by the Professors. If they say that their definition is better I'm going with that above both a journalist and a second year student unless you provide something a little more compelling evidence-wise.

Presumably they talked to the editors. I don’t think they opened up LSJ at random, compared an entry to the new version and concluded that the change was made for the sake of political correctness.

I suspect your assumptions are wrong because you don't know many journalists. I have that misfortune. They will have taken the juiciest part of whatever they were told and made a story from it. Facts are entirely secondary.