Dan Rather springs to mind. Another BIG LIE was the continued references by many in the MSM that George W. Bush had said (to justify our invasion) that an attack from Iraq was "imminent." Actually, what he did say, in his 2003 State of the Union Address, (link) was: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
The above is the exact opposite of saying a threat was imminent. He said that we can't afford to wait until the threat becomes imminent.
As a personal matter, I have given up sending my own scathing and informative missives in a vain attempt to persuade liberal friends acquaintances of the truth. I have systematically deleted all the libs from my email contact lists, and have forsaken relationships that go back as far as the third grade, which, in my case, was half a century ago. I have never, ever convinced a liberal to change his position, even when the fact set was totally in my favor. Hey--Rather and Mapes still won't admit that the National Guard documents were forgeries. Ignoring liberals, rather than fighting with them, was the best move I ever made.
Another good example is when the NYT wrote that the 9/11 commission report was a blow to the administration's position that Saddam had ties to AQ. Two 9/11 commission members were on Fox News the next day and said they didn't know what NYT was talking about, that they agree with Dick CHeney (Cheney had recently stated that there was a connection between Saddam and AQ. Neither the NYT nor any of the "news" outlets that ran with their lie ever acknowledged the correction by the 9/11 commission members, and to this day pretend the original NYT report was correct.