The Poisoning the Well fallacy doesn't mean exactly what you are using it for. Poisoning the Well is a fallacy if the negative things being asserted about a source are untrue or unrelated to their assertions; it's not a fallacy if the statements are true and related to the credibility of the assertions. Thus, for example, if someone is linking to a sports analyst to support their prediction that the Dolphins will make the playoffs, it's not Poisoning the Well to point out that said sports analyst has a poor track record in predicting playoff contenders.

That's the fallacious argument in action. In this case, we're talking not about predictions (where the reasoning would apply) to factual reporting (where it doesn't).

The world's worst math student might be horrible at math, but if the student says "2+2 = 4", the student is correct in that statement. The student is correct because the statement is correct; it doesn't matter if the kid is wrong most of the time.

Many posters here attempt to reject reporting that doesn't tell them what they want to hear. These same people are hilariously the same ones who constantly complain about everyone else being either in a bubble or in a cult.

Which, again, is why links are important

Links are important as supplements and sources of reference. When they're used as a be-all, end-all they're useless, especially when used as a tool of left wing confirmation bias, as they often are.