From The New York Times: A federal judge in Oregon has ruled that a blogger who was sued for defamation cannot claim protections afforded to journalists under state shield laws. What are the implications of this ruling for bloggers and journalists? How should judges decide who is protected and who isn’t? Read more here.
Leaving aside the argument that the "all" in your question requires a negative answer, doesn't the answer depend on one's definition of a journalist? Some writers "affiliated with a 'newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system'" don't meet my definition. In the NY Times article, the definition is a legal one. Should a blogger enjoy fourth estate protections? This seems to be the the question the judge answered.