[prole]

Quite the opposite. The journalist idea of "Anonymous" is very different from the insider idea of Anonymous. In the simplest terms, Anonymous is anyone, really. It's not limited to 4chan users (there are other chans, and the users sometimes overlap). 4chan itself is just a convenient place to recruit people to perform an attack and later use as a scapegoat.

As an example, the anti-Scientology protests were reported under the catch-all banner of Anonymous, but the people organizing it and hitting the streets were also from rival forums such as Something Awful. Funny enough, the protest movement is completely different from (and at odds with) the original catalyst: other Anons DDoSing Scientology websites for using the DMCA to take down a video on YouTube. As someone mentioned earlier in the comments, one core motivation is trolling, or "lulz," so under this so-large-its-useless umbrella term "Anonymous," there are groups sabotaging one another just because it's funny.

The core people organizing* these DDoS attacks come and go, but they are a dedicated few who have the time and skills to design such programs to distribute to the masses. As in the Time magazine hack, it was respectably sophisticated (this article does it justice: http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-ha...). And yes, this core group does have botnets, as well as excellent social engineering skills to motivate *channers to download and execute their software.

I love watching people and organizations of all varieties underestimate just how tenaciously annoying they can be.