How often have you experienced an idea rejected only because of its source?

Is an argument that the minimum wage causes unemployment in lower wage jobs to be rejected because it was made on Fox? Should a criticism of tariffs be discounted because it was made by a writer for Cato?

I understand minimizing exposure to some pundits because of their tone or their misinformation, but that does not mean everything they say is assumed worthless.

This is the opposite of credentialism.  A weak argument should not be believed because of the credentials of the arguer.  This is just authoritarianism.  ‘Believe women’  is the authoritarianism of the social justice warriors and identity politics.

I understand that one may allocate their time to a source that comports more with their view of the world, their narrative.  But that does not mean that an idea from an alternate source is to be rejected just because of the source.  I understand that a source will be less credible than others.  I consider National Review and The Wall Street Journal more reliable than Breitbart though both are on the right side of the spectrum.  I tend to ignore sources that intentionally mislead using carefully selected facts, or writers who cannot describe an idea or thought without personal invectives and demonization.

When an idea is rejected because of its source only, it either means the idea is of no interest or the reader is intellectually lazy.  It is much easier to demonize a source than rationally understand or respond to an idea.  (There are reasonable limits to this argument.  I assume the source is within a credible sphere.)