The text of the ruling does not in any way say that bloggers are journalists, it says that it's irrelevant whether someone is a journalist for purposes of libel.
Note also that earlier courts had rule that Cox was not entitled to protections she claimed under state journalist shield laws. As far as I can tell, this still stands -- what she was doing was not "journalism" within the meaning of those laws.
Maybe they already had the interesting version of the article written before the ruling came down, but there's no way you can twist a case that ruled some particular blogger was not a journalist but "public figure" rules aren't just for journalists into "bloggers are journalists".
Note also that earlier courts had rule that Cox was not entitled to protections she claimed under state journalist shield laws. As far as I can tell, this still stands -- what she was doing was not "journalism" within the meaning of those laws.
Maybe they already had the interesting version of the article written before the ruling came down, but there's no way you can twist a case that ruled some particular blogger was not a journalist but "public figure" rules aren't just for journalists into "bloggers are journalists".