This is probably the most telling bit of information:

  The provisions of ORS 44.520 (1) do not apply with respect to the content or source of allegedly defamatory information, in civil action for defamation wherein the defendant asserts a defense based on the content or source of such information. [1973 c.22 ss.4,5; 1979 c.820 s.2]

So the case could have been won even if she had been ruled a "journalist". This is the problem with the ruling.