The expertise of the victim

Bertrand Russell one wrote an essay called “The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed”. The essays is worth reading but he basically points out that the idea that the popular idea that the oppressed are more vituopus than their oppressor or even more virtuous than the average folk. Though he does not frame the logical argument and its fallacy, he does point out some counter examples.

I recently came accross a parallel situation I will call "the expertise of the victim", where the news media will take a victim or more commonly the surviving relative of a victim and ask them for their opinions on something like, tehcauses of crime. its prevalance and its solution. These people are treated as experts, when they only at best can provide inexpert witness testimony on one incident.

The poigniant example i saw, was an interview in which a civil rights attorney who had worked on cases of racial bias and wrongful death of young black men for 20 years, was displaced during the interview by the grieving mother of a young man that had been gunned down by police. She was not only asked questions about her experience, but asked questin that clearly should have gine to the civil rights attorney hwo had been working in the field. Things about prejudice in the police force, how wide spread this problem was, what the solutions were.

I saw an even more ridiculous example recently of an interview in which Descendents of North American indigenous peopels were interviewed so they could tell the "Truth about Columbus". As if being descended from people that lived in teh same hemisphere as the ones that columbus met with and pillaged, would give them special insight into the man and the historical events surrounding him.

Is there a more formal name and statement of what I am calling "the exp[ertise of the victim"? What subcatagory of fallacy is it? (I seem to remember there was a fallacy of expert in one thing expert in all things that wpould be related). Is there are special name for attributing the properties or knowlege of ancestors to descendents?

If you are the media source trying to sell this kind of testimony as authoritative, you are engaging in a kind of manipulation that plays off one's emotions. If you are the person who gives disproportionate legitimacy to such testimony, you are committing the argument from false authority , which is a specific version of false attribution, or appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.