On looking back I see my above comment is a fairly common theme. I would just repeat my earlier note that the proper response to misinformation is more information - namely the right to reply and correct with equal prominence, promptness and accessibility as the original. This should be a universal requirement across all news media to avoid other legal liabilities.
The issue is extremely badly posed. It is not "who are you" but "what are you doing". If you are publishing or reporting something factual that is not at the time public knowledge and making it public knowledge you are publishing news.
I see no reason to make distinctions as to who is doing that. We should all be treated equally under the law based on our actions, not our status.
There's a real problem with wilful ignoring of the <sarc> </sarc> brackets around comments, particularly those made by airline passengers fed up with extreme security delays. Often the reaction defies all common sense and is merely the exercise of power for the sake of it.
"Something like the Disputes Tribunal? "
No, more like the Privacy Commissioner, Ombudsman or Serious Fraud Office. The purpose is to pursue and prosecute the case on behalf of young people through existing channels rather than create a separate judicial entity.
"Also: in the case of defamation, there's no criminal offence."
In the case of young people it is more likely to be harassment, offensive behaviour or incitement. Possibly even identity theft or psychological abuse. These are criminal matters causing psychological harm rather than simple defamation.
Our courts are simply a meat mincer for the ordinary citizen who cannot survive the onslaught of cost, delay, inaccessibility, hostile formality, bizarre precedent and complexity/rigidity of rules. They serve only the bureaucracies, the very wealthy and the large corporates.
However my concern is that any attempt to redress the power imbalance should not further increase the ability of bureaucracies and large corporations to suppress and oppress the individual.
Generally, the proper antidote for incorrect information is more information. This is particularly true for the internet where it is often impossible to stop misinformation spreading to other jurisdictions and media. Just as the traditional MSM has long been subject to requirements to publish retractions or responses so should modern media publishers. The exception to this of course is invasion of privacy, particularly via visual media. Again, once the offence is committed, it is likely to be near impossible to remove the offending material completely. In these cases only criminal sanctions on the perpetrator can be imposed effectively.
Existing criminal sanctions are likely quite adequate. What should be considered is improving young people's ability to initiate appropriate criminal complaints and prosecutions. Regarding other misinformation the ability to require the publishers to issue retractions, refutations and corrections should be considered.