What are some of the big fake news medias?

1. What the major catalogs say: aggregated lists and their limits

Wikipedia maintains a high‑visibility "List of fake news websites" that aggregates sites identified by journalists, fact‑checkers and researchers as distributing false news or disinformation, and it includes commentary on strategies such as typosquatting and homograph spoofing used by deceptive publishers ^[1]. That resource is useful as a starting point but is itself a compilation of third‑party judgments rather than an adjudication by a single, neutral authority, and the entry’s scope mixes satire, deliberate hoaxes and ideologically driven disinformation ^[1].

2. Who debunks them: the fact‑checking ecosystem

Established fact‑checking organizations — Snopes, Reuters Fact Check, Full Fact and networked projects like PolitiFact — play the front‑line role of identifying and documenting false claims and misleading stories, publishing routinized debunks and archives of corrected claims that researchers and libraries point readers toward ^{[2] [8] [3] [4] [9]}. University and library guides routinely direct users to these fact‑checkers as reliable starting points for determining whether a site or claim has been flagged previously ^{[10] [11] [6]}.

3. Examples and naming practices: why specific "big" fake sites are sensitive

Authoritative compendia list numerous sites described as fake or intentionally deceptive, but many academic and library guides emphasize methods and categories (satire, hoax, state propaganda, partisan misinformation) rather than maintaining a single canonical "top ten" list of big offenders, reflecting the fluidity of the problem and the risk of over‑broad labeling ^{[1] [11] [7]}. Where governments or political actors publish "media offender" lists, mainstream outlets can appear alongside obviously dubious sites — a practice that mixes legitimate error‑tracking with partisan messaging, as seen on the White House’s "Media Offenders" page that highlights frequent mistakes by named media organizations ^[5].

4. How large legacy outlets get pulled into the debate

Mainstream outlets sometimes appear in government or partisan compilations of "misinformation" even when their errors are discrete and corrected, a dynamic that complicates public understanding of what counts as fake news and is noted in university resources that urge readers to look at corrections, sourcing and consensus across outlets ^{[5] [6]}. Libraries and media literacy guides stress that even reputable newsrooms can make mistakes without being classified as deliberate purveyors of fake news, and that readers should consult multiple fact‑checking services to assess claims ^{[7] [11]}.

5. Practical takeaway: how to interpret "big fake news medias"

The clearest way to answer which outlets qualify as "big fake news" is to consult cross‑referenced lists and independent debunks: compilations like Wikipedia’s list catalog many sites judged by researchers to publish disinformation, while Snopes, Reuters Fact Check and Full Fact provide ongoing, dated records of specific stories that were false and corrected ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. Academic guides and media‑bias sites offer frameworks to distinguish satire, error and intentional disinformation — a necessary step before applying labels that carry reputational weight ^{[10] [11] [6]}.

6. Conflicting agendas and why the label matters

Labeling an outlet "fake news" serves both corrective and political functions: fact‑checkers and libraries aim to clarify factual accuracy, while political actors can weaponize lists to discredit adversarial media; both phenomena appear in the public record and scholarly guides, so readers must weigh the provenance and motive behind any claim that a given outlet is a major purveyor of falsehoods ^{[4] [5] [7]}. The recommended approach is transparent sourcing — use multiple fact‑check archives and institutional lists, then judge patterns of behavior, corrections and disclosure practices rather than relying on a single "fake news" tag ^{[2] [3] [1]}.