The requirement for convicting a media source of libel ought to be much lower.

[onenote]

15. for non-public figures that is the law.

Malice applies when the person about whom the false statement was made is a public figure -- someone presumed to have more access to publicly rebutting the false statement than a public figure.

Here is what one invites when one loosens the restrictions on libel/slander actions against public figures:

In the leading case of NY Times v. Sullivan, the Times ran an ad soliciting contributions to a defense fund for Martin Luther King, Jr. who had been arrested, along with other civil rights activists, in Alabama. The ad was highly critical of the Montgomery, Alabama police force and made certain factual misstatements (including, for example, claiming that MLK had been arrested seven times when the correct number was four). Even though the ad didn't refer expressly to the Montgomery chief of police (Sullivan), and even though the Times published a partial retraction, Sullivan sued in state court and won a half million dollar judgment against the Times.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a higher standard than mere negligence was needed to make out a case of libel where a public figure, such as the chief of police, was involved.

It also is worth noting that Justices William O. Douglas and William Brennan were of the view that the "malice" standard ought to apply even to private plaintiffs.