So, to say "I trust/distrust all media sources in equal measure" demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible naiveté.

    > to say a story is bunk because it appears in RT as a
    > source demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible
    > naiveté

I didn't. I said an argument that relies upon RT due to the story not being carried elswhere is "bunk".

    > All news sites carry a bias

But few are sanctioned by Ofcom for regularly broadcasting "materially misleading" content, called out by all manner of former employees for being propaganda machines, or widely derided by virtually every other serious media outlet. Attempting to cover that with a general statement of all media bias - having substantially misrepresented (or just not properly read) the comment you're replying to - "demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible naiveté".

    All news sites carry a bias - all of them.

A little off-topic, is there a name for this kind of rhetoric? I've seen it used a lot, for example:

- When pointed to government corruption they would reply "all the other governments have corruption too", implying there's no difference.

- When asked about low level of life, they would reply something like "15% of your own people are living below the poverty line", implying nothing out of normal is going on.

It's like, one guy has his boot covered in shit and the second is covered in it fully, the first says "you have problem of being in shit" and the second responds "you have that problem too (pointing to his boot) so it's ok".

This argument basically implies something like "we must not discriminate on the grounds of this problem because it is normal for everyone to have it", avoiding the possibly disadvantageous discussion of what is level of the problem and whether this level is normal.

The phrase you're looking for is "toe the line", having the sense of standing with your toes behind a line on the ground.

Because something is printed in RT doesn't make it untrue. That something - critical of Russia's enemies - is only reported in RT and not in any other major new source - is a strong contender for being untrue.

For something to an example of the ad-hominem fallacy, it has to be discarded purely on the basis of the claimant. If something is being rejected on the basis that the claimant is unreliable and contradicts generally reliable sources, that is something quite different.

Should I start discounting RTs weather report for NYC based on their political reporting feel free to call me out on fallacious thinking.