AVLON: "But there is clearly also division between the role of The New York Times as the paper of record and maybe just simply a marketing scheme to increase their subscriptions. But it is a division in news rooms as well. There is a lot of debate and disagreement within “The New York Times” itself. What do you come down?"
ANGWIN: "I think the thing is journalists started to understand this idea of objectivity that we were all raised to follow is not working. It is leading to false equivalence where you work a lie that was stated. And, so, everyone is looking for a new guiding light. I think we should use Ian’s and have a hypothesis like, is what the president said true and give the readers an analysis about that. But there are a lot of different ways to approach this problem."
AVLON: "Hypothesis like follow the facts and then come to a conclusion based on that."
ANGWIN: "There is two different ways of looking at it. I think a really good example is “The New York Times,” the way they put a list together of every lie Trump had said for two years and showed the facts to back that up. After that they felt comfortable saying this man lies all the time. That hypothesis is fully proven."