Interesting how Theranos tried to threaten the Wall Street Journal. Threatening journalists, even through legalistic means, sounds like a particularly dumb move: if nothing else it proved they were on the right track.
What is this assertion based on? News organizations large and small carry insurance to protect them from lawsuits like this.
Will the general counsel grill the newsroom leadership to make sure they can back up what's being printed and that they're not violating the law? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean they will be cowed by threats of nuisance lawsuits.
And that's just the general case. The WSJ isn't an ordinary paper; they can charge $400 a year because their readers believe they can get a business advantage. The moment readers think that anybody with a few lawyers can get a negative story killed is the moment they stop relying on the paper.
And if somebody did end up taking them to the mat, they're owned by Rupert Murdoch, a famously combative media boss and son of a reporter whose net worth is north of $12 billion. The guy started Fox News, which might as well be called the Angry Shouty Channel. I cannot think of a worse person in the world to attempt to intimidate with a lawsuit.
There was a time when newspapers took higher moral stands, but now it's more about P&L decisions.
[0] http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/02/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-seco...