That's why people try to get things delisted from Google, because they can't get the original publisher to remove them.
That's the entire point of this. Right to be forgotten laws don't allow you to censor the intercept (a publication), but do allow you to force aggregators to remove the publication.
If you can prevent a journalists' article from ever being found, you have effectively censored it. Especially, this would impact a journal outside the "top 100" - Someone could conceivably search the 50 or 100 top publications but after that you need an aggregator. So essentially this would censor journalism.
And to my original point, it's not just about Google in particular since the alternative to Google is pretty much some other aggregator.
Oh this I 100% agree with. Information isn't information if it can't be found. (And noting that I'm employed by Google) I don't at all find the argument that "we can't prevent you from publishing something, but we can prevent it from being accessed" not compelling. Does it apply to newspaper anthologies or hard copy aggregation?
The question of whether one uses Google or other sources is irrelevant here. Sure, journalists could go to find public records and not be able to be published because of the law (because their article wouldn't be listed etc).