And they can be sued for libel. You can't just report inaccurate stuff like it's ok
Wrong! You're just spouting bullshyt. Obviously don't know what Actual Malice is.
Actual malice means that:
The story was published with the knowledge that it was false
The story was published with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.
Therefore, when a reporter uses a "source" or "sources" disclaimer, a public figure like Mark Cuban is wasting his time & money filing a lawsuit, because it is in most cases nearly impossible for him or anyone else of his stature to determine these two factors above. So again, when information is disseminated via the media and it is hearsay or speculative & not known to be 100% accurate, "source" or "sources" is sometime used as an protective shield to protect journalists & media organizations from libel lawsuits.
Higher Burdens for Defamation -- Public Officials and Figures
"Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their mind about elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit.
When an official is criticized in a false and injurious way for something that relates to their behavior in office, the official must prove all of the above elements associated with normal defamation, and must also show that the statement was made with "actual malice."
"Actual malice" was defined in a Supreme Court case decided in 1964,
Hustler v. Falwell. In that case, the court held that certain statements that would otherwise be defamatory were protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court reasoned that the United States society had a "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
This meant, according to the Court, that public officials could only win a defamation suit when the statement that was made was not an honest mistake and was in fact published with the actual intent to harm the public figure. According to the Court, actual malice only occurs when the person making the statement knew the statement was not true at the time he made it, or had reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.
For other people that are in the public eye, but not public officials, the defamation laws are also different. These people, such as celebrities and movie stars, must also prove, in most situations, that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice.
Freedom of speech is less meaningful when a statement is made about a private individual because the statement is probably not about a matter of public importance. As noted above, a private person has no need to show that the statement maker acted with actual malice in order to be victorious in their defamation lawsuit."
http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html
"Actual malice in
United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the
information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice
