While the other two sort out their disagreement, here's one way the broadcast of misinformation is regulated which is not subject to dispute.
There is a federal agency called the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC regulates interstate and international communications over TV, radio, satellite, cable, etc., throughout the US and its territories.
Among its duties and powers, it prohibits the broadcast of false info regarding a crime or catastrophe if the broadcaster "knows the information is false and will cause substantial 'public harm' if aired." FCC rules indicate that the harm "must begin immediately and cause direct and actual damage to property or the health or safety of the general public; or divert law enforcement or public health and safety authorities from their duties."
Additionally, while law prohibits the FCC from engaging in censorship or otherwise infringing on First Amendment rights of the press, it is nonetheless illegal for "broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge."
The FCC may not interfere with how a broadcaster chooses to select or present news or commentary and its authority to respond to complaints regarding the above is narrow in scope. Generally, it cannot intervene without testimony from a person with "direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news."
The FCC's authority for this may be found at 47 CFR § 73.1217, which states:
§ 73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.
No licensee or permittee of any broadcast
station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a
(a) The licensee knows this information is false;
(b) It is forseeable that broadcast of the information will cause
substantial public harm, and
(c) Broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause
substantial public harm.
Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to
pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the
program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable
under the circumstances.
Important context is included in the accompanying note, which states:
For purposes of this rule, “public harm” must begin immediately, and
cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety
of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public
health and safety authorities from their duties. The public harm will
be deemed foreseeable if the licensee could expect with a significant
degree of certainty that public harm would occur. A “crime” is any act
or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by
law. A “catastrophe” is a disaster or imminent disaster involving
violent or sudden event affecting the public.
More helpful context may come from Sec. 4 of this law review article and you may find the article in general, about criminalizing false speech on social media, interesting: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v31/31HarvJLTech65.pdf