You need to read the article and then my commentary below.
Look, perhaps the judge ruled the way he did because he was sort of let off the hook because Cox defended herself and didn't know which points of law to raise. That shouldn't be an excuse for the judge though. I hate it that they hide behind that they don't have to consider anything about the law that isn't raised by the adversaries.
Here's the root of the issue. The shield law is irrelevant in terms of what press it seeks to protect because the US Constitution trumps state law. Freedom of the press is just that. You can't have a lower law that affords greater protection to one press owner/user over another where all other factors are equal, which they would be in this case with Cox. You can't say that a TV station may air something and then turn around to tell Cox that she can't cover the same story (not plagiarizing) just because she's not on the laundry list of "approved" forms of "press." She's press whether anyone else likes it or not. She has every bit as much right (and right to equal protection under the law) to publish as anyone else.
That US judge knows this but decided otherwise anyway and for purely political reasons. It's either that or he's stupid and ignorant. There are thousands and thousands of bloggers doing investigative reporting using all sorts of sources, and there are many fascistic elements in society that seek to shut that all down. There are also many greedy capitalists who want to do away with the competition and criticism. We seen this developing for years.
Look, freedom of the press is just like freedom of speech and religion and assembly, etc. If you let some people publish or speak or worship or gather but not others solely because you don't like what they publish, say, worship, or gather for, when there is no truly compelling, huge, urgent reason to prevent any of that, you're clearly violating the US Constitution and illegally playing favorites.
Oregon's law is completely worthless. It was well-intended to help make a statement that publishers, the press, should not be abused by the state or other powers that be. However, it was misguided in writing a closed list. It certainly should have said "including but not limited to" if anything at all. Even the US Constitution says that the powers not enumerated are reserved to the people, even though the people are always too cowed to exercise them in unison.
Therefore, it's my ruling that US District Court Judge Marco A. Hernandez's ruling isn't worth the paper it's written on. I certainly won't be adhering to it. I'm press in addition to being religious press. If he can stop me from publishing, he can stop anyone. He can stop Jesus from speaking openly in the synagogues. He can be what the Pharisees couldn't achieve without murdering Jesus.
Now, if I make an honest mistake and someone shows me, I'll do my best to correct it.
If I investigate anything or anyone brings information to me that I believe has merit and publish an article based upon that, that someone else feels is libelous or defaming, etc., I will certainly say that I have as much protection as the New York Times. If I don't have that protection, then neither should they. There's nothing about them that makes them either more trustworthy or even better or more professional. In fact, I've had many problems with NYT content over the years. They printed things I never would have agreed rise to the level worth publishing. They've printed things that were patently false on their faces. The lead-up to the Iraq invasion was just one such huge example.