I don't accept the media view unquestioningly. I simply believe that the music isn't really 'punk' any more as it has no sense of rebellion, uniqueness, or anger. I agree with Anaesthesine that Morrissey is probably the best example of the original punk attitude, in that he refuses to conform.
I accept that you and the '400 sweaty kids' may have seen some very exciting 'hardcore' bands, but they were playing derivitive music. As Mark Simpson points out in 'Saint Morrissey', punk was originally a term for a rent boy, and was adopted by the movement to subvert the fashion and musical culture and cause a general sense of disquiet amongst the chattering classes. As the term is still widely applied to the music of that counterculture, I accept that people still use it to denote the music; there is, as yet, no other term for the cacophony of three chords and a tuneless singer (and before you say it, yes I happen to like some punk bands). However, it is not nonsense to say that punk incorporates a fashionable and social agenda; it is bound to, in the same way that nu metal, dance, indie, or even boy/girl band pop does. But whilst the former categories are willing to admit, even revel in their derivation, the ethos of punk was originality ... and I'm sorry but, for me, any band rehashing what the Sex Pistols and their 70's cohorts began are not truly punk.
But let's not quibble eh! I still maintain post-punk is better, but to be honest labels just pigeonhole unneccesarily. If you like a band, who cares what they're called or what their genre may be.
Happy punk rocking.