In this article, I will analyze two strategies involved in the war against fake news: the quality rating of media outlets and fact-checking. For each of them, I will point out the motivations of the stakeholders to undertake such demanding enterprises. These motivations are allegedly for the sake of better information and democracy. In regard to the economic and sociological landscape of journalism and the inherent issues of such practices, one can doubt that these motivations are the only ones. More importantly, these strategies raise a lot of concerns: methodologically (lack of consensus among fact-checkers), consequentially (limited positive impact), ethically (self-grated authority and symbolic violence), deontologically (conflict of interest and double standard), and ontologically (naive realism). These findings undermine the Manichaean picture of savior fact-checkers fighting against vile fake news producers and give a sharper understanding of the war against fake news led by the media.