It depends on who the news is being spread about and how you do it. If the person or persons (including a company) are not publically known or not generally known to the general public prior to the news spread, Libel/Slander is easier to prove. However, if the targeted person is a "public entity" it can be harder to prove.
Even then, the burden of proof is not on you to prove that the statement is true, but them to prove it is untrue. In addition, if you are a "public entity" you must prove that there was actual malice behind the reporting OR that you knew it was false and did not then stop reporting it. Additionally, you must prove that this false reporting lead to damages to you and associations (though this is the easy part).
A good number of quality journalists will use attribution of potentially false statements (for an organization that has such a terrible relationship with the President, CNN has a lot of sources "Close to the President") or that some people are saying (on Wikipedia, this gets a great big [who?] if an editor sees this in an article. In 24-hour news [who?] tends to be "A guy on one of our prime time shows, which everyone knows is entirely fictitious" or the people ready to debate the topic on actual news shows again, they are making opinion statements, not factual ones... or they are making factual statements when they say "I believe..." or "In my opinion...").
Finally, several states with big media production industries (New York and California) have what's called Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws. This allows the defendant (respondant? It's a civil lawsuit) to challenge the entire suit on the grounds that the person suing is doing so to get you to shut up about an issue and not because of any meritorious libel or slander accusation. This requires the judge to decide if the case has merit and if it doesn't drop it entirely.
And finally, in the United States, we also have Anti-Libel Tourism laws. This means that we will not extradite anyone (citizen or not) to a country on any Libel/Slander charges UNLESS those same charges can be won in a US court. This both protects political refugees AND stops people from filing Libel Suits in the UK to get around how respondent friendly the United States courts are on the subject (The UK is more plaintiff friendly).