I'm not going to share NPR's article because I don't want to give them clicks; but, it's worth pointing out that a lot of people respect NPR as an objective news source and that respect seems to be misplaced.
Once again, they passively referred to the assailants who Kyle Rittenhouse shot as "victims."
There's a reason why judge Schroeder wouldn't allow the prosecutors to refer to Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz as "victims" during the trial -- that word carries a presumption of guilt. If they're victims, Rittenhouse is a murderer. Since Rittenhouse isn't a murderer (and he clearly never was) the people who he shot weren't victims.
This isn't me nitpicking semantics. A major news organization, not in an opinion piece, using the word "victims" instead of "assailants" in this case is deeply misleading and irresponsible.
There's a difference between saying "gunshot victims in the Rittenhouse case" and saying "Rittenhouse's victims." NPR did the latter. That's an important semantical distinction.
As for credibility and objectivity in news, I'm running out of options. I still trust most of what comes out of Reason because I know people who work there. The Hill isn't terrible. Sometimes the New York Times gets stuff right.
I think that we need to read various sources and, generally, when a fact is agreed upon by those varying sources, we can start to actually believe that a fact that's being reported is true.