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.
Opinion should stay opinion. If the paper calls itself an opinion paper, then I’m not worried about lies. You expect people to completely taint opinion because opinion is tainted understanding from what others believe.
If the paper calls itself a newspaper, yet pumps out lies as truth in news articles, that is wrong. “Analysis” is something that can blur the two, but if stated as such, provides the right context.
It’s like putting the word “satire” on your article—it tells people that what is said has a certain context, as well.
If some expert is quoted in a newspaper as stating Trump had someone killed, would you expect that either that person, or that paper, should be able to be sued?