One of the things that is often pointed out in the First Amendment Auditing community is that the First Amendment does not define "the press," and courts have,

One of the things that is often pointed out in the First Amendment Auditing community is that the First Amendment does not define "the press," and courts have, by and large, also avoided strictly defined it. Which essentially means that _anybody_ can be "the press," so long as they are doing journalistic things, like reporting and writing about matters of public interest. You don't need to work for a newspaper, or for anyone other than yourself. You can be an independent or freelance journalist. You don't need credentials. Indeed, there is not a single government entity in the country that issues credentials indicating whether a person is a member of the press or not. Certain government offices might issue credentials in the form of access to a particular event, but those credentials are about access, not about legitimacy. You can be "the press" even if no one has ever issued you credentials for anything. And it's worth noting that the line between traditional newspaper journalism and digital journalism via blogging or other online dissemination is not as clear-cut as you might think. Plenty of traditional newspapers publish op-eds and commentary sections, alongside their news sections. And plenty of traditional newspapers frequently update their online editions. So even if this proposed bill were not a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, it would be really hard to draw a bright line between newspapers and bloggers, for the purpose of enforcement.