Is the lack of evidence that the media reports, a fallicy?

I believe you are searching for the aphorism: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

I submit that this is indeed a logical fallacy, and a common one. I’m not sure how, or if, it maps to one of the existing fallacies. Perhaps Dr. Bo can weigh in. Looking to my Latin fallacies reference guide, I see nothing that would fit this particular bill. As was mentioned, the argumentum ad ignoratiam (appeal to ignorance), which argues X is true because there is a lack of contrary evidence, comes closest. 

In any case, my observation is that politicians and the media often engage in this logical fallacy (whatever it is called) for partisan/strategic reasons. I’ll touch a live wire here and use the 2020 election as my example. Just because the Trump campaign was unable to provide sufficient evidence of election fraud to convince a court to overturn the election results, it does not logically follow that there is “no evidence” election fraud took place. Yet partisans are routinely making that claim.

Of course, it also does not follow that election fraud  did take place. Those who gathered at the Capitol, some of whom stormed the Capitol, took the logic of the “absence of evidence” argument to the other extreme. As partisan zealots are wont to do, they saw absence of evidence as evidence of suppression or some other such conspiratorial nonsense.

It’s a statement of fact. If there’s no evidence, then it’s true. If there’s evidence, it’s untrue. This is different from the situation in which there is evidence, but the speaker either ignores the evidence as if it does not exist or treats it as insignificant and rejects it out of hand. 

In order to have logical fallacy, there must be some argument, and that means deriving statement from statement(s). What you stated is just a statement, there is no derivation (so, therefore ...). However, it should be emphasized that people often do not state the whole argument, but only a part of it (examples of this are enthymemes and sorites). The reasons for this shortening are different: simplicity, shorter exposure time, laziness... Sometimes that unspoken part is really obvious and it is not necessary to state it, but one should be careful: the fraudster can easily hide a lie / bad argument right there.

If we understand this sentence as an abbreviation for: "We have no evidence of human-to-human transmission, so there isn't human-to-human transmission", then is it argument from ignorance .

Is the lack of evidence that the media reports, a fallicy? (sic) 

Possible loaded question fallacy, plurium interrogationum: "it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact. "  see Dr. Bo's Complex Question Fallacy.

The question is problematic because it implies, or could be construed to mean that The Media relies on 'lack of evidence' in its reportage when in fact journalists and news (media) professionals typically apply rigorous scrutiny to a story before reporting it. If a media outlet reports there is insufficient evidence for the claim they will generally preface it with a disclaimer that they have not independently confirmed the veracity of the source or information. Professional journalists, as a rule, require strong evidence in various forms, if none exists they will qualify the report with a declarative statement that there is either overwhelming evidence to substantiate the report or to refute it.

So, the question as it is currently framed could be the equivalent of asking, when did you stop beating your wife? 

As you can tell from the various responses a poorly constructed question invites too much speculation and interpretation to be specific enough for a proper answer.

Is the lack of evidence that the media reports, a fallicy? (sic) In short, no, or, it depends. Could you please be more specific?

It seems to me it is a fallicy (sic) of specious reasoning.  Again, what are you referring to?

Your example:

"We have no evidence of human-to-human transmission. Be it an invisable ( sic) object or empty argument. 

Robert W. Armijo

This example appears to be either a paraphrase, a misquote, or taken out of context.  Until we have further clarification no one can say whether it is a case of specious reasoning. So, further investigation is required.

For instance, who is this Robert W. Armijo , did he really say or write this, and in what context?

As it turns out, if this is indeed a direct quote of Robert W. Armijo,  and we're talking about the same person, it is essential to note that the author is a famed humorist, satirist, and prolific contributor to "The Spoof" website.  

So, to reply to your opinion that what he wrote is an example of "specious reasoning", the answer would have to be, perhaps, but it was more likely intended as a joke and probably taken out of context. 

Jokes can riff on or parody all manner of subjects, and while they may use puns and wordplay to provoke laughter or thought there is no nefarious intention to deceive.

Now, can a joke be considered specious reasoning, i.e. superficially plausible, but actually wrong". Sure, but it's a joke, and as Dr. Freud supposedly observed, "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar".

It's a factual statement. If there's no evidence, then it's true. If there's evidence, it's untrue.