“Sure, the media claims that Senator Bedfellow was taking kickbacks. But we all know about the media’s credibility, don’t we.”

And the fallacy is?  Please demonstrate the reason for your answer.

If this is strictly about the media’s claims about the senator, then I would say there is an attempt to poison the well going on here.

IOW, the media made a claim but a counterclaim was advanced that everybody knows the media is an untrustworthy source.

It does nothing to prove or disprove the claim about the senator, but attempts to cause hearers to suspect the source of being dishonest.

Which I can sympathize with, to be honest, but it is still a fallacy.

I agree, Lynn.  However, can you please name the specific fallacy operating in the statement?

All I know is “poisoning the well” is a form of “ad hominem.” And in this case I would think it would qualify as “ad hominem abusive.”

Is that what you were looking for?  It all falls under a more general heading of “changing the subject.”  Right?

Lynn,

I can see how you arrived at the conclusion that it is an ad hominem given that the quote relates the dubious credibility of the media to Senator Bedfellow.  However, there is a much more specific fallacy taking place in this quote, and I think you’re getting closer to identifying it.

Would you like to try again?

I’d have to start ferreting through fallacy lists in order to hunt and peck for what you are looking for, and as that would be a bit too time consuming I think I’ll see what others have to say.  You’ve got my curiosity up, though!

Well….

Even if the sweeping generalization of the media is true, it still doesn’t follow that any claim by the media is necessarily false.

I’m thinking “non-sequiter”, but there may be a more specific fallacy that applies in this case that I’m not thinking of.

Alright, the site I got this example from lists it as a genetic fallacy, since the origin of the claim (in this case, the media) is taken to be the evidence for the claim.

Hope that wasn’t too frustrating.

To be honest, I don’t think that’s a good example of the genetic fallacy.  The genetic fallacy has more to do with the origin of the thing being discussed.  For example—

Don’t you know you shouldn’t let your kids trick or treat?  This custom has its origins in paganism, and I’m surprised that you’d let your kids act like pagans and contrary to the Bible, yadda yadda yadda.

In the case of the current example of the media, it was an attempt to shoot the messenger in order to make people think the reports of the senator’s shady behavior are not true, or are not credible at least.

OK, I see you got that from this link:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

And given their explanation, the example fits.  However, I’ve not heard that fallacy explained that way, except on that site.

I’ve since found a couple other sites that speak of the origin of the claim, as well as the origin of the thing being discussed, so I think it was the genetic fallacy, yes.

Good one