Both polestars are 'new', in the sense that precession brings different stars closer to the pole axis over time.
Sigma Octantis (mag 5.47, ra 21h09m dec −88°57′) is the best South Pole star within (optimistic) naked-eye range. As you can see, it is just over 1° off axis (c.f. Polaris, which is marginally better at c. 3/4° out).
> here in the southern hemisphere, there is no recognised "pole star"
My polar alignment scope has etchings for Sigma Octantis (screenshot from companion iOS app: [1]). Wikipedia also describes Sigma Octantis as a southern pole star [2]. Maybe it's just not as common to refer to Sigma Octantis as a pole star as it is for Polaris, but it does seem to be recognized.
We're talking about pole stars. Being a naked eye star isn't a necessary condition. Choice of a pole star is a balance between brightness and proximity to the pole.
> again no one in the Southern Hemisphere I've every heard of looks up and points at a "pole star"
It's never too late to learn something new. :)
More to the point, "the north and south polestars" would be well understood by much of Sky & Telescope's target audience, and that's who they're writing for. I get that it's going to be less common knowledge outside of their target audience, but that doesn't make the article incorrect, which seems to be what you want to argue.
Just because people don't use it for navigation doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It would be much more complicated to explain the orientation of the southern cross in the article. Pole star is more suitable for use there, so they used it.
Sigma Octantis (mag 5.47, ra 21h09m dec −88°57′) is the best South Pole star within (optimistic) naked-eye range. As you can see, it is just over 1° off axis (c.f. Polaris, which is marginally better at c. 3/4° out).