From Chi Trib in yesterday’s front page Meeks story — “As mayoral candidate who is also a minister, Meeks walks a fine line; Political rhetoric fills his sermons, but IRS rules prohibit campaign activity by churches” — this boo-boo:
From the pulpit . . . Meeks makes it clear he thinks the rules are aimed at preventing church leaders from mustering the power of the congregation behind a righteous candidate who is “saved” by their belief in Jesus Christ.
Their belief? Whose? Belief of a righteous candidate. Singular. So his belief.
The writer can’t say that because of current widely obeyed restrictions on gender-identification.
He can’t say “his belief” even though the antecedent is singular and in this case male, which is arguably beside the point.
Instead, he gratuitously pluralizes the pronoun, creating nonsense on the spot, to avoid giving preference to the masculine.
Neither does he want to say “his or her,” which looks priggish and would confuse the issue, since he is clearly talking about Meeks, who is male.
This being male may annoy some, but that is beside the point, and no arguably about it.
Blithe Spirit 
I’ve seen more of this corruption of third person plural, and like you, it’s beginning to get to me. I’ve also seen it increasingly used to refer to a company in second reference. As in “They [General Motors] were facing bankruptcy.” Or, I suppose, the more proper terminology is to say, “They were AT RISK of bankruptcy.” Why use one descriptive term when you’ve got a cliche AT HAND?
LikeLike