Is it incorrect to refer to a C-130 as a jet? In this article by CNN, the C-130 involved in the unfortunate crash in Savannah, GA is referred to as a "jet." Is this considered proper usage? I'm not looking for public opinion here but official categorization, if one exists. Perhaps there is an USAF or FAA document I've not been able to find which delineates such things. I would imagine that there is also an engineering or academic definition of such things.

The AV.SE description of the Turboprop tag states that it should be considered "as opposed to a jet engine."

Wikipedia says that "Turboprop engines are jet engine derivatives." which really sort of muddies things but the actual turboprop article notes that "the exhaust jet typically produces around or less than 10% of the total thrust" It never occurred to me that the thrust produced by a turboprop engine is even measurable. Would this factor, then, be the delineation between jet and prop? Should it be a matter of whether the exhaust gasses or rotating components propel the aircraft?

So to restate my question, Should a C-130 be called a jet even though a significant percentage of its propulsion is derived from a propeller?

Note: Please consider JATO/RATO outside of scope of this question.
CNN actually called it a jet with four turboprop engines, if you can believe that.

ICAO is probably as universal a source as you will find. They list the C130 as turboprop/turboshaft. Their table of aircraft type designators allows selection of engine types from this list: Jet, Turboprop/turboshaft, electric, piston and rocket. There are no associated definitions.