What needs to be adjusted? The current common law is if a news source publishes a misrepresentation about a public figure and the pubic figure proves malice, the public figure wins.
I submit to you that Fox News has revealed oceans of malice against Trump. That news organization has worked tirelessly to torpedo his political campaign, because they hate him.
Is that OK? I say No.
Could Trump succeed in court and win damages from Fox? I doubt it.
This is a broken situation. The media is damaging society because they have no accountability.
One thing you DON’T want is a damper on criticizing politicians. They need all the criticism they can get.
The current law makes sense - a news source may actually publish an inadvertent misrepresentation in good faith about a public figure. OR maybe jokingly like in a political cartoon. So the malice requirement makes sense - you purposely and recklessly intended to damage that person’s and his career.
Rather than “malice,” why not just allow lawsuits for “stupidity” and “lack of due diligence?”