Because the conversation wasn't between Hannah and James. It was between Hannah, James and the ACORN employees - hence the problem with all party consent.
"This law pertains to someone getting a court order to cut into someone's phone line without their knowing of it."
The statute certainly covers that, but it's not limited to just that. Again, this is why the include the relevant term "oral communication" and it's definition in the statute. Oral is explicitly NOT an electronic communication.
You may read the statute, in its entirety here.
Look, there have been several Journalism PACs that have objected to the Maryland statute for just this reason - it criminalizes what would otherwise be sound and well-intentioned investigative journalism. But, the statute is what it is.
In this particular case, the jury in the civil case is going to have to make a determination as to the ACORN employees' "reasonable expectation of privacy". Did these specific circumstance allow these employees to enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy". I happen to think it they did not, but anything can happen when you take a case to the box.
However, what's more important in this particular case with respect to this particular statute is the journalist's cognizance (or lack thereof) of the alleged illegality of their actions. The statute demands that in order to prevail in a civil claim, the plaintiff must prove that Hannah and James were aware of MD relevant wiretapping statute. It's an impossible challenge for the plaintiff's to meet, in my estimation.
How about when a News reporter goes to a scene of a crime, or auto crash, or what ever, and video tapes people without asking for consent ?