If that's their excuse it's pretty lame, it isn't hard to stick to what is verifiable and accurate without implying this 14 year old could consent.

The headline is a statement about what was alleged. It's quick and easy to verify that the allegation included Pritt sticking his penis in her mouth (the full affidavit is here). I think that meets the common understanding of 'rape,' it does meet the federal uniform crime reporting definition of rape, and it would be 2nd degree felony sexual assault in WV law.

Even if the specifics were harder to verify and the reporter was looking for a broader term than 'rape,' something like 'sexually abused' would be much more accurate than 'had sex with.' And it's important to be accurate with this because describing sexual violence as a type of sex instead of a type of violence makes it seem like a normal thing for people to want to do.