The underlying issue here is the use of an anonymous source. I don’t know how to recalibrate the law in this area, but a reporter who goes public with accusations from anonymous sources is vouching for their reliability. The reporter should acquire some potential liability. A named source is different. In that case, the potential libel would attach to the source, not the reporter. As it is, reporters have gotten into the habit of mainstreaming sheer rumor, speculation and malicious fabrications from hidden actors. That really needs to be reined in.
Well said. I’d only add that an anonymous source does not necessarily mean a real person. Reporters do make things up, then hide behind the anonymous source cliche.