Regardless of original meaning, as happens with language, words definitions change based on usage and common understanding. I think the 'hacker' battle has been lost, and those examples you listed should use a different term that would be more easily adopted.
It's a bit too easy to simply write off ALL journalists (no pun intended) as "not that bright".
You may as well say most people aren't that bright. Which would be equally unfair.
Likewise, how can you stick a small-town reporter who covers highschool basketball in the same list as a New York Times reporter with an Ivy League background in economics? Make no mistake, I'm not implying the latter is somehow superior to the former, but there is a huge range between the people who make up the journalism industry.
Take general assignment reporters for example. They have to learn how to learn.
What I mean is, they're experts on digesting new information. Because they have to write about ANYTHING at a moment's notice, and can't be expected to be experts on everything. THEN they have to write about that topic using only 500 words (or so) to an audience who also probably knows nothing about the topic.
That's a tall order and you shouldn't be surprised reporters get it wrong sometimes.
I'm not the first to say it but the issue is growing, and it's only going to make the public more leery of any tech-minded but innocent kid or professional pentesting adult who uses the term "hacker".