I am with you Bill.S the article is an attempt to layman simple the idea and falls off the cliff. As you say the pressure is because of the energy that is present not because there is nothing there, he sort of picks that up in the next sentence.
What is happening is because of your studying you are becoming more discriminating about statements and the simplifications we use. You really have been doing what would amounts to an undergraduate study and you simply know that some of these simplifications don't work. I think the intent of what Ethan was talking about is right if you read it as a whole. However really it doesn't work for me either because I like you would say there can never be nothing in a location in space, space is defined as there being something.
Ethan knows what he is talking about it just got minced in his wording and he sort of corrects it in the discussion but that particular wording is ugly.
Unfortunately you are probably going to notice this a lot more which is more a statement about your studying than anything changed in the media writings.
It is really refreshing to see you can now pick up errors when even scientists make them in simplifications
