A bunch of bloggers joined an amicus brief in the Apple-versus-bloggers situation, which asks the court to adopt "a functional test for the newsgatherers' privilege that does not discriminate between reporters, regardless of the medium in which they publish" as well as creating a "a test that will not impede journalists' use of the Internet to report news by limiting their constitutional protections when they publish there."
I'm not on the list, having already filed a declaration in the case (at the request of the lawyers; I'm not being paid for this).
The question of who is a journalist has been basically taken off the table in this case, given the judge's initial ruling that dodged the issue. Now it's about whether any journalist can write or broadcast about something Apple or any company has deemed a trade secret. Big journalism organizations are on the case now -- late to the party, I note, having ignored it earlier -- because their own interests have been threatened.
I'm uncomfortable with the "who's a journalist" question, and am still working on what I think. It's clear to me that we need to separate the who from the what -- that is, we need to protect people who are doing the deed of journalism, as opposed to naming the people we are calling journalists; this is the only sensible approach, if we're going to protect journalism and the public good, in a world where anyone can be a journalist at one time or another.