Nope. The Press -Jones very loosely included- operates under auspice of the First Amendment with a good-faith assumption that their output is factual, absent malice and an obligation to issue an official retraction when in error. Should a reporter or press agency be hauled into court for slander, defamation, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff (burden of proof being on the accuser) to demonstrate error, malicious intent & damage incurred; this is the reason why most lawsuits against the press are unsuccessful. In Jones' case, the plaintiff(s) were able to demonstrate he was knowingly in error, intentionally/maliciously disseminating false information (re: Jones' under-oath acknowledgement of plaintiffs' "Perry Mason moment", admission of culpability) and damage resultant from his actions.
One may make the argument that the First Amendment guarantees it's not illegal to lie -and that is accurate... with limitations --the line between protected speech by way of deception and criminal act being crossed when damage-resultant outcome of said deception occurs whether such is intended or not. To wit: an individual falsely yells "fire" in a crowded theater and patrons thereof end up trampling someone to death in the rush to escape; the deception of yelling "fire" is not, by itself, a crime but deliberate incitement of panic resulting in death is. Conversely, yelling "fire" (erroneous publication) in a crowded theatre but immediately following up with "just kidding" (retraction) is top-tier a-holery but does fall into the category of 1A protected speech.