From section 255.5 of the guidelines linked in the article:
"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed."
For example, if I read a positive review of a Mac notebook on nytimes.com, I am going to assume they get free products from Apple to review and I won't be surprised if the criticism is less than vicious, even if the product is awful.
On the other hand if I read this pg essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html, I believe that is his actual opinion based on using a computer that he purchased and liked. If it were disclosed that he was receiving anything of value from Apple, I would read the essay differently.
The lack of a significant distinction becomes even more obvious when you consider a group of people sharing a blog vs. a media organization.
The distinction between "news organization" and individual also makes very little sense to me. When someone contributes original work via twitter or a blog, why is this any less "news" than the writings of some large media company? Perhaps some (many?) blogs admit a significant reduction in "quality", but this seems a less than compelling argument. Just read the editorial section of an arbitrary newspaper...