From the link in OP:
A journalist gathers information for a media outlet that disseminates the information through a broadly defined “medium” — including newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, magazine, news website, television, radio or motion picture — for public use. This broad definition covers every form of legitimate journalism.
I don't know why this is problematic. You have to broadcast (that is, disseminate) what you gather, but that's so easy as to be nearly unavoidable. In today's media world the main distinction is not between objective reporting and whatever is the opposite, but instead between reporting and opinion.
Nearly every major news organization maintains that separation to some extent.
...if the definition of journalist is broad enough to include anyone who gathers factual information with the intention of informing the broader public in an unbiased manner then it would eliminate this complaint
The sticking point here is "unbiased."
Either no one is unbiased, or we all are. The day when we believed any news source published unbiased information is long gone. You can get in a long philosophical discussion about whether there exists anything objective, but it's beside the point.
I think the distinction between actual reporting and bs is one of quality, not some status attained by the reporter. As readers get smarter about news, we learn to read with an eye toward its provenance, to compare several sources to see if they're just copying one another, and to consider our impressions of the source's record for accuracy. The burden falls, more and more, on the reader or viewer. Whoever is the journalist is only part of what we weigh in our judgment of legitimacy.
Where does this put journalists' legal protections?
I think if we acknowledge all our communications are subject to monitoring and nothing much in the communications world is private any more, it falls on the journalist to create sufficiently secure connections that sources are difficult to trace (when that is the intent). Why should anybody be compelled by the government to reveal their sources when the government is well able to dig around and find out just about everything a person has been doing?
Let the government uncover the sources for themselves, if they want to know. If we all can be journalists, then we all need to come up with satisfactory security on our own.
Third corner of the triangle: As a source, if you tell or give someone information and you don't want it broadcast or published, it's up to you and the journalist to encode it or conceal it to your mutual satisfaction.