[FlyFish]

IANAL, but I think such a suit would be very difficult to win. It's not enough to prove that a statement or article was wrong, you must also prove that the writer knew it was wrong and published it anyway "with malice." Given that you refer to reporters who "don't know what they're talking about" (a characterization I would agree with), they almost by definition can't know that what they're saying is wrong, and even if they did know they were wrong it's almost impossible to get inside their head and show that they acted with malice.