It's not that they were "easy cases", it's that Sandmann was not a "public figure". Sadly, a judicially-created doctrine that was originally intended to protect newspapers that criticized politicians has been turned into a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that negates nearly all media defamation lawsuits.

The Sandmann case would have been an absolutely perfect explosive to chuck into the Supreme Court to force them to finally limit New York Times v. Sullivan. Sandmann was in no way a "public figure", he was just some kid getting hassled by a leftarded minority scam artist. Because Sandmann was not a "public figure" he does not have to prove "actual malice" by the media when they defamed him, so all these media outlets don't get the damn near absolute protection afforded them by Sullivan and they had to choose between begging SCOTUS to make it universal and most likely getting a ruling telling them "no, a 16 year old boy standing on the steps of the Capitol building is not a public figure merely because you decided to call him a racist, you retarded scum" or paying out settlements.

They chose the settlements, which also tells you just how terrified they were of getting BTFO.