Yes, you are correct. It is a phony question arising out of years of government over-reach.
There is actually no such thing as "THE PRESS" in the sense that term is used by elitist Progressives today (including those on the juducial bench) — some sort of elite group whose members are allowed preferential treatment under law.
In the Constitutional sense, “the press” is a technological device for disseminating information. One cannot be a “member” of the press. One can only have access to a press.
Any device which enables one to state and publicize one’s views is a “press,” whether it be moveable type, offset, TV, radio, or the Internet. We all have free access to “the press,” meaning we have the right to pay any provider who wishes to sell us access to publicize our ideas.
In this regard, no CBS anchor has anymore claim to special treatment for being part of “the press” than does any blogger.
“Freedom of the press” applies equally to every citizen seeking to use a technological device to record and publicize his or her opinion.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Thank you for your observation. As you can see above in the actual amendment, the term "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is describing freedom of communication both orally and in writing. It is quite obvious, they are not describing an occupation or profession. The amendment protects the natural or inherent right of expression by the people from interference by government and does not give any special right or status to any self described occupation.