How is that a risk? What are the chances that anyone will only see news from one source?
> After fact-checking a hundred times you’ll decide that NPR does report facts, but do those facts paint the whole picture?
After fact-checking a hundred times, won't you learn NPR's strengths and limitations? And wouldn't you learn if facts are sometimes omitted?
I think we form nuanced, detailed, if often tacit opinions about the sources. For example, I'll articulate a little of mine:
* Rule #1: Never trust opinion pieces.
* NPR: Quality news, no deception or try to push an agenda, won't always dig deeply. Always present a pleasant tone and has light information density. An inefficient source, but sometimes have stories and facts that others lack - I wish I had more time for them.
* NY Times: World-changing revelations are taken for granted. Reporting is nuanced, never satisfying the desire for clarity (which is good - the world isn't clear). Sometimes leave critical questions (IMHO) unaddressed and can be lacking hardcore, expert analysis, and bury key facts in long, wordy reports. Recent, more narrative style is annoying.
* WSJ: Never quite trust them: Murdoch demonstrates they'll embrace the Reactionary movement at any cost to truth or society. WSJ reporting looks excellent - up to the standards of the best, like NYT, etc. - and they cover important stories, but a lot of doubt lingers.