Napolitano is not good at explaining law, in part because he's "in it" and assumes to much about the listener.
In defamation law, "actual malice" has absolutely nothing to do with harboring ill will. Nothing. The question of ill will in a defamation suit is irrelevant.
In defamation law, "actual malice" is promoting false and reputation damaging information (other than parody) either knowing it is not true, or with reckless disregard for the truthfulness. Reckless disregard ends up being a jury question, because how much "fact checking" is required is a balance against other factors, like how important is the report (to society, let the jury decide), how damaging is the report, if false (let the jury decide), and time constraints.
Ill will has no play in that calculus at all.
The law has its own dictionary, which is largely nonsense to people who have not studied the law. It's unfortunate, because the law is supposed to serve the public, not just the high priests of law.
Thank you for your great post and explanation.