I thought this was interesting. Although it is not perfect, the chart seems reasonable. The rankings are based on median income of occupations as there is a correlation between income and IQ. Obviously, that isn't always true, (ie: astronomers are understated, and surgeons are overstated.)
So notice the occupations News Reporters #141 and Newscasters #90.
Both require very low IQs to be successful. I'd argue the low IQ is accurate for reporters, because it doesn't take much skill or intelligence for the job. In fact, news companies prefer people with low intelligence as long as they are highly motivated, so they can just "report." Journalism schools train students to have the mindset of a robot to keep an impartial and objective tone. The idea is to report clearly without personal thought or personal opinion; and it's completely necessary for objectivity. I only wish this standard was kept in the real world. Unfortunately today, those same people are offering their opinions without having taken a statistics class.
A Newscaster ranks low because all it requires is reading a teleprompter, smiling, and occasionally attempting to be witty. If you can read a teleprompter, smile, and groom yourself properly, you are essentially qualified.
I think society ignorantly looks down at carpenters, plumbers, and farmers, but in reality, these people have much higher IQs than given credit for. And people who are reporting sports are assumed to at least have average IQs.
Now this isn't an attack on all in that profession. There are many people who are overqualified that chose a career path for whatever reason. Likewise, there are very intelligent bloggers that do this as a hobby, or they do it for business. That said, just look at the majority of "talent" on ESPN alone: Absent-minded and very little skill; but thankfully, I think most viewers realize it today, as opposed to 10 years ago.