Slander can work, yes.
But, no, it has nothing to do with the burden of proof.
If the target of the slander is a “public figure”, a reporter can say false things about said figure if the slander was not “malicious” — that is, it was not intentionally false.
Having plausible deniability makes proving the “malicious” element very difficult.
Now, that does not mean it is impossible.
(The Covington kid was not a public figure, which is why they settled.)
> “if the slander was not “malicious ...”
These days the malicious component is more than obvious and verifiable.
Pointing to another source for PD does work anymore. It only implicates the upstream party and renders the downstream party an accessory to the injury, culpable for not fact checking.
Your argument is dated, old. Times have changed. Public figures are now fighting back.
Exhibit 1: Devin Nunes
There are others.
The media scum will regret they were ever born into this new era.