A nuanced approach is fine - this is problematic
A distinction needs to be made before we, as a society, do something stupid.
In respect of news which is being reported as current, then, I see little problem in this - one needs to ensure that what they are saying is accurate, or, at least, there must be a balancing act between the rights and needs of the subject, and of the public. A story listed as current that implies something damaging, where it is an incorrect allegation, should, right, be treated as defamatory.
However, matters of historical record should be entirely different - a story which was accurate *as at the date it was written*, should not cause liability to fall on a provider. A printed version of the paper, which has been sold but remains accessible through a library, which contains a statement which was true at the time of publication/sale (argument to be had), is not libellous - it's a matter of fact that, at that date, the story was correct. The same should apply to online archives - if content is no longer a "current story", then, even ignoring the massive practical problems in terms of updating old material in the light of new discussions, it remains of historical value - if anything, an amended historic article is less accurate than an unamended one.