Does a logical analysis show multiple genetic fallacies here?

Person 1: "Get your facts straight and stop listening to MSM. They are corrupt."

It's a Complex attack, strawman distraction, and Poisoning the well, as it implies the opponent's "facts" are "not straight" or,  false,  without addressing how they are so, and then makes a derogatory presupposition that they are derived from "corrupt" MSM. 

 1). Simply characterizing one's opponent as not having their facts straight is an ad fidentia attack meant to undermine the opponent's confidence, but not the facts themselves. 

2}. Presupposing the opponent's facts are derived through MSM is a loaded claim and blatant attempt to Poison the Well. We do not know who or what the source is and attributing it ad hoc to MSM leads us nowhere closer to the truth.

The term MSM itself is rather innocuous and could be applied generally to an array of media sources.  In this context, it is clearly used in the pejorative as a way of dog-whistling and poisoning the Well. However, with an objective eye, MSM could apply to most media outlets regardless of their political bias. What's the criterion? Is the implication here only fringe media sources arbitrarily deemed not mainstream can be relied on for factual accuracy?  If so, we would still have to define and agree on what MSM applies to. We would also have to distinguish between political commentary and legitimate News sources.  Are Fox News, RT, and OANN not mainstream, and by what measure or determination are they less corrupt than other media outlets? It's a Strawman distraction away from the argument of the facts.

Simple Truths:

1. A liar is a liar. (Are they?)

A liar might also be an actor, comedian, satirist, prestidigitator, illusionist, politician, preacher, military officer, CIA agent, or anyone else who uses subterfuge or legerdemain in their personal or professional life. Again, what's the criterion? Are they all liars?

2. If a person lies to you about one thing, you cannot trust anything that person tells you (because a liar is a liar - see Rule 1 above). Is this true? Did your parents lie to you about Hell, Satan, Jesus, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, masturbation, et cetera? Hasty generalization. 

3. If a person validates a lie, that person is a liar (and you cannot trust anything that person tells you - see Rules 1 & 2 above).” (QED. see above)

Now apply those simple truths to your question to get my response....The REAL question you should be asking yourself is - who funds the corruption of the current “Media”? ( Non sequitur, Red Herring, loaded question) Conflates Funding with Corruption.

9

My first reaction is to say it is the fallacy of Origin (Damning the Source) (Consider the source.) The opposite fallacy of the Appeal to Authority is the Fallacy of Origin, also known as Damning the Source. This fallacy is rejecting an argument because of its source. Plato is not one of my favorite philosophers, but I think he was correct in “The Phaedrus” when he said this: “[Y]ou seem to consider not whether a thing is or is not true, but who the speaker is and from what country the tale comes.” Restated: identity politics determines truth. The problem, of course, is that even a pathological liar can tell the truth on occasion. 

Be kind to your friend, we all get sucked into this from time to time. The more emotional the issue, the easier it is to get sucked in.

Get your facts straight and stop listening to MSM. They are corrupt.

This person might mean that because MSM(N?) is corrupt, then that means they are wrong—but that's not what they wrote. They 1) implied that the other person has their facts wrong and 2) stated an opinion that they shouldn't listen to MSM because they are corrupt, not that they shouldn't believe MSM because they are corrupt. So it might have been premature to jump in with the genetic fallacy .

Person 1's "liar is a liar" nonsense is borderline pathological. I would use the reductio ad absurdum to point out that everyone lies or has lied at one point therefore by person 1's logic, nobody (and no source) can ever be trusted about anything.

ad hominem (guilt by association).

They are treating all media sources are unreliable because there are unreliable media sources.

Someone who once lied cannot be considered a pathological, notorious liar. Even a pathological liar can tell the truth sometimes.
As for the argument, it’s a bit ambiguous. When a person 1 says "you can't trust anything that person tells you", the question is whether he means that we have to believe otherwise, that is, that the statement made by the person is untrue, or just that we cannot take the claim as true without some other sources / testimonies because it is unfounded.
In the explanation of person 1, it is as if there is an unspoken premise: The one who lies to you once is a liar. It is added to that that liars always lie, and therefore the one who lies to you once always lies. 
It seems that the term "liar" is not entirely clear here, so we have an equivocation .