To be libelous, it must not merely be damaging to reputation, but also concern a matter of fact and be a maliciously false representation on that matter of fact.
You could fairly describe the picture in the article as mocking, but not libelous.
You could fairly describe the picture in the article as mocking, but not libelous.
I suppose, since we don't want to keep arguing, that it will remain unresolved.
Thankfully it appears you understand my use of the term.
Or to put it another way, you're the only person who thinks it's unsolved, everybody else understands the meaning of libel and how you're using the term incorrectly. If you truly don't want to argue this, you should just accept that and move on.
I've changed the original wording.