You are incorrect about that. If it is done with actual malice toward the person, who as a result suffers material loss, then it can be criminally or civilly libelous.
A few years ago in the county neighboring my own the Republican candidate for Sheriff purchased an advertisement for his campaign in the local newspaper. After he gave them the ad some snotty little leftist sh*tkicker on the newspaper staff altered the "paid for by Joe Smith for sheriff" campaign disclaimer on the ad to "paid for by the Liberty County Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" or thereabouts. He was planning to file a libel suit and the newspaper printed a tiny retraction on the back pages...but rather than owning up to the harm they caused him the paper actually defended the claim and published an allegation by some union thug democrat who _claimed_ without any proof at all that he heard the republican use the n-word once! It was a complete smear job by a newspaper that was serving as a partisan agent for the Democrats and they pretty much got away with it.
Sometimes newspapers do that sort of thing and sometimes they do it with actual malice. If that turns out to be the case here - which could be hard though not impossible to prove - then IMHO she should sue the pants off of them.
And what in the story (which my comments were based on) leads you to believe 1) there was actual malice and 2) she's even considered suing the newspaper? She's a public figure, and it's virtually impossible for her to win a lawsuit against a newspaper. I stand by my statement. Put the Law School for Dummies book away.