It isn't the journalist but the nitpicking commentors who are clueless. The headline accurately enough conveys what is happening and the article articulates it well. Orbital mechanics isn't intuitive enough for there to be perfect fit words given human experience, human timescales, "plummet" is fine.
[EDIT] On reflection, this is even goofier than I thought at first, since the choice of lead for those applications is precisely because it's little affected by wind, and even fares better than most things against moving water, while this is entirely about something falling faster because of its interaction with air.
I genuinely think a decent number of people are going to envision a situation where satellites suddenly plunging out of orbit like they would in some big budget disaster movie. You are well within your right to tell them they are thinking of the word "plummeting" incorrectly but you are fighting an uphill battle. Technical and dictionary correctness has its place but to convey information properly people must consider the vernacular.
Satellites are falling relatively very fast compared to usual and some of them have or soon will burn up in atmosphere as a result, it’s a headline, not a half sentence expected to grant a degree in astrodynamics.
You are correct, one of the meanings of plummet is a rapid descent. These satellites are rapidly descending. You are correct.
Again, though, word choice matters. Can you see where other commenters and I are coming from?
Because we're now 5+ comments deep arguing semantics. You know the facts, I know the facts, we all know the facts, what do we disagree on?
Plummet:
1. to fall perpendicularly
2. to drop sharply and abruptly
Or, Google's scraped definition from Oxford dictionary: fall or drop straight down at high speed.
If you google "satellite plummeting", you'll notice that almost all of the results also include "fireball", "burning up" and/or "reentry".