There's a difference between showing data or its interpretation is possibly incorrect versus just saying we don't need to inspect the data because of who referr

There's a difference between showing data or its interpretation is possibly incorrect versus just saying we don't need to inspect the data because of who referred to it. Being skeptical is one thing I can agree with, but not wholesale dismissal of the data because one is skeptical of the source. Besides, often times the source isn't really the source. For example, if a publicly devout racist quoted FBI crime statistics, does that mean we can ignore the data because we heard it from the racist and not the FBI?