I won't disagree with any of that, Teribus. But it's not a matter of what I "would like to use [a] generic term for"; & would just make the point that, whereas the National Union of Journalists {NUT}, which is the leading union for the profession, demands that the bulk of the member's time & earning power be spent in the pursuit of press employment in any capacity, not just reporting, the Institute of Journalists (IoJ), the one I belong to, does not, but simply demands to see a good body of work published in reputable journals; most of mine were in the Guardian and The Times, for which I was book/theatre/folk-music critic when I joined; but as my main earnings at the time were from teaching, I did not qualify for the NUT. Both, though, which is my point, have the word "Journalists" in their titles, and membership of each is recognised thruout the trade [if you don't like "profession"] as indicative of employability within it. So I return to my point that you are over-defining the word "journalist" within a narrow compass which does not subsume to any significant degree its true meaning. So how long it may be since Sir Max actually did any reporting is quite beside the point as to his being definable inter alia as a journalist.

~M~