I have no issue with the phrase; I know it means "without pattern" and is used, often in blogs and in online and print publications for situations that are not spatial. That's fine. My issue: when it's used with "literally" and there no map. That is, when its specificially mean to include a spatial implication, but there is no map! Case in point:
US Cities with the Worst Hotel Rate Inflation
The data is available. Neogeographers (and regular GIS orgs) offer tools to map that data likety split. So, why no maps? Perhaps this is a teachable moment? I offer this exercise for students: find a PR/news story that notes new geospatial data, but doesn't include a map. Make a suitable map with an online tool of your choosing.