How to define a journalist is a tough problem I can't easily solve, but I'd be inclined to say that once you do, any of them being in jail for any reason should count. The risk of overcounting the few journalists who might genuinely commit crimes unrelated to their journalism seems lower than the risk of undercounting journalists who were in reality jailed because of their journalism, but were officially for invented crimes.
"Journalism" was a temporary artifact of the transition from industrial to technological economy. There was a brief time when communicating broadly was hard and required capital. Now, anyone can do it.
It's important to remember how vulgar early (and pre) 20th century journalism was. Largely opinion, hearsay and sensationalism.
Later, journalism consolidated and developed standards to sell itself. Once technology put it in everyone's hands, it became so cheap that standards could no longer be a moat. We're back to vulgarity. I don't think there is any significant difference in the market between someone who went to the Columbia School of Journalism and a blogger.
Are you suggesting a (jailed journalist) / (total journalists in the country) ratio to determine the level of control that the government is trying to exert?
