The issue isn't, strictly speaking, that it's a portmanteau word using two different languages. Television is such a word (though funnily enough, when I pointed out on FB years ago that, when you look at telephone and telegraph, which use solely Greek words, it should be "teleorasis" or some such, a Greek friend immediately said "That's what we DO call it in Greek!" though of course it was teleorasi because Modern Greek is the Ebonics of Classical Greek). There are plenty of words that have been coined that are portmanteau words.

The issue here is that the NY Times has fallen greatly in its reporting standards and its reporters are now little better than bonobos ranting at the world most of the time, and so rather than simply pick up a dictionary to find out the word, someone out there, within the last 10 years certainly, re-invented the word.

This is precisely the sloppy and stupid sort of writing that we can expect from journalists these days. Instead of simply saying, "analyze", they say "engage in an analysis of" because they think it makes them sound smart. Instead of "pay", they "make a payment". Someone out there didn't like saying "lovers of eclipses" and decided to be cute, but in the most ignorant way possible.

This doesn't mean you can't say "cronut", though didn't those things disappear as quickly as they appeared? That brings me to the other point, which is that being too permissive in language leads to sad results. I can almost picture the WaPo article where the writer says, "The Donald Trump rally was oddly crunk." A word that was perhaps popular for the lifespan of a mayfly in a limited geographic region shouldn't be accepted. Likewise, words that mean anything (and consequently mean nothing), like the Philadelphia slang term "jawn", shouldn't be accepted in standard English.