This is another overgeneralized claim. Making broad statements like this, cuts the articles credibility. To say that there were further tests and not include the results, experimental information and data analytics. By this point in the article, things start to sound extremely coerced. When thinking of it deeper and doing research, certain press companies are funded and have paid partnerships with political organizations. This makes me want to do a further investigation and test if the Washington Post is financially backed by maybe political Pacs or Biden's administration. The lack of credibility in the article makes readers question these things.

This piece of information is very interesting. Let's break this down from an analytical point of view. This claim is overgeneralized and broad. It says that people who rely facebook are less likely to say the've been vaccinated. First, people who rely on Facebook for information are not always self aware that they are relying on the site for important info. When people are asked where they get their news, they might say a place where they see news often, but this may not be why they are making decisions for or against a vaccine that is fairly new to the entire world. A great question that counteracts this set of data is, for people who do not have access to social media, lets say, third world countries, why are they hesitant to get the vaccine? There is a large amount of vaccine hesitancy coming from African countries where people don't have reliable access to internet.

• Even if this story only represents one facet of Knox's perspective on this matter, I am deeply inspired by her thoughts and reasoning around this event.
• To me, situations like this, where the media has effectively created a monster, and the public has rallied around demonizing that figure, indicated a larger community problem.
• That the media lacked ethics, still uses inaccurate language, and fails to uphold journalistic standards when reporting about Knox is one aspect of the issue, but on the other hand what Knox, Monroe, Markle, Diana, and Spears all have in common is the rabid public that was more than happy to demonize these young women for their perceived failures and sexuality.
• The media made the news, but the general population consumed it, created the steady demand for more information.
• Especially with the popularity of crime podcasts and other gossip rag quality podcasts rising in mainstream entertainment right now, the same ideologies that have haunted Knox are being rebranded and continuing today.

Is this how companies can produce shows and what not about Marilyn Monroe, and Princess Diana? How is the legal rights of a 'public figure' decided when that person has never willingly been a public figure? Those who are in the Royal family are public figures, and there are ceremonies, and official meetings declaring them public figures. Similarly, actresses, government officials, and performers all make the decision to pursue fame.

I hope that there is some action, some change, in the way public figures are covered and the manner in which the public consumes this material to protect more people from being left living with their media appointed doppelganger.

I knew nothing about Amanda Knox before this article. I went and read her interview with NYT by Jessica Bennett for further background information before coming back to this story by Knox.

I would agree that she characterizes the scrutiny from the media accurately. Especially in light of Monica Lewinsky, Britney Spears, and now Meghan Markle, Amanda Knox's story although a different topic, is the same story of the press villainizing a young woman and slandering her name to the point of infamy.

I remember hearing about Amanda Knox and the murder of Meredith Kercher in the late 00's. What I can remember most about the case was that Knox was a college student that was unjustly convicted of murdering Kercher. The media took the story by storm and it seemed like a soap opera drama.

In this article, Knox states, "To the world, I wasn’t a suspect innocent until proven guilty, I was a cunning, psychopathic, dirty, drugged-up whore who was guilty until proven otherwise". This goes to show how responsible the media is and how much power they have when giving a person an identity in the public spotlight.

Knox has been able to somewhat recreate her image by exclaiming her innocence and being let free rightfully so. By trying to "grab the bull by the horns", with the bull being the media, Knox is trying to educate those to not always jump to conclusions before it can ruin someone's identity.

This article and "saga" reminds me of a film I saw recently about another trial-by-media. That movie is Richard Jewell, which is based on Richard Jewell and the 1996 Olympic bombing. The media assumed Jewell was the bomber, when Jewell was innocent.

For Knox, the nightmare may continue with being a media victim. As Knox said, "Even the tiniest choices people make about how to refer to newsworthy events shape how they are perceived." Hopefully, she continues to use her voice to combat trial-by-media.

This is a very strong statement. The media can easily make its own narrative on any topic, and it will spread like wild fire. She was unfortunately the victim in this instance and her life will forever be changed because of it.

Amanda Knox expresses the lack of control she has over her own self and public identity since she was wrongfully blamed. I did not have initial thoughts on her as I was never aware of this story. Now, I can't help but feel bad for her. She did not deserve this type of treatment from the media or the public.

I had never heard of Amanda Knox's story prior to reading this article through this course. This is a horrible tragedy that really took a huge toll on this innocent girls life. I know that our legal system does use the innocent until proven guilty measure, but something had to have been off with the Italian court and authorities. The threats she received contributed to the horror and sadness that she wrongfully was dealing with as an innocent individual who was just studying abroad.

How did this wrongful conviction last an entire 8 years?

This statement made me question if the Italian authorities blamed her strictly because she is American.

Did she not have any say or give any type of consent for this movie to be produced? Is that even legal?

Amanda Knox was wrongly accused and starts this article by questioning if her physical body belongs to her. The media has made her question her own rights as a human.

This is an interesting piece. Knox refers to herself as a doppelganger, or atleast the part of herself that was accused and went through this experience. She has detached from herself in this moment and is now almost experiencing herself in third person. This seems to be an effect of making it into media by way of negative experience. In researching the origin of the word used, I discovered that Doppelgänger is a German word and oddly enough there are more Italians in Germany than any other country. This gives this metaphor a deeper meaning for me. Knox's mindset at this time is that her identity has detached from who she really is. She believes that this version of her will be recognized forever, which is interesting because I have never heard of her before this.

In this part of the article, I was prompted to research the basic history between Italians and Americans.

In reading this part of her story I asked myself if there was some biased or racism against Americans in general that may have led to Italian authorities overlooking the actuality of Amanda Knox's involvement with her roommates death.

It made me wonder if this story was a part of a larger political issue.