I have been socialized by older generations to believe misinformation as well. Older generations when I was growing up perpetuated conspiracy theories but also gave me some culture. A few conspiracy theories still are hard for me to let go due to confirmation bias, and because I am prone to be skeptical. Through my media class I learned that the older generation after digital natives did not have much of a choice as to what media they or (persuaded by family) their grandparents believed because technology was not as advanced, and the wars limited expression on-air and on television.

This is 100% true for me. I use Facebook every day and it is my favorite social media site for memes and motivational words- but not for news unless I see it in an echo chamber or posted by a celeb I follow. I love Instagram for everything artful. I have never got into TikTok and do not want to be spied on because I have had my data stolen a lot over the years and do believe that the information is collected just like it is on every social media site to be sold in the metaverse or going to some agency. I know I could use TikTok if I tried, but again I am not appealed to use it for some reason. Maybe because I know how much content is on there that I think is cringey or misinformed. I also see the same narrative perpetuated about perfect pretty people and large living that gives a false impression about reality, money, and body image. I am a digital native.

Social natives may be more interactive in social media and more inclined to socialize on their devices instead of in person. This is my hypothesis because I see a lot of younger people Facetiming and utilizing social media more than I do, and even though I could be as active as them, I am just not as inclined to participate on a more personal account. I would be more inclined to participate promoting a company I work for on social media than interacting with it as much as the younger generation for myself. I think that digital natives may be more skilled at media literacy because they have some background knowledge on what existed before the floods of mass misinformation from social media on platforms like Twitter and Facebook- while seeing how misinformation was perpetuated in the media for the generation older than them.

If you are not willing to try to understand where another person is coming from, you might as well live under a rock- because there are millions of people who have lived a million different lives and to not understand that an individual can have a valuable attribution to the truth is to throw their lives away in their face for the purpose of gaining attention in the media by perpetuating lies that spread disinformation and hoaxes- defaming Amanda's character.

Amanda is basically being extorted by the media. They know she did not do anything and they have found the killer, but in order to cover their tracks they continued to extend her false conviction because it would look bad if they backtracked on their sensational story for the media. This is horrible because Amanda's name is used in a very bad context and this can seriously spread rumors about her and make her appear like a criminal in the public eye based on all the stories around the case that mispresent her. In becoming a public figure her identity was distorted by the media, correlating to her living a double life of being the person that is mentioned as a staple in the murder. She is wrongly focused on and had no choice in becoming a public figure- and her becoming a public figure was done with the wrong intentions.

Journalism should be conducted by actively speaking to the people involved and getting to the truth about how they interacted with the situation. I feel this wrongful conviction could have been avoided if the media had done a better job with accurately reporting without bias to find the real factual information about what had conspired that day. Amanda was cheated out of an explanation and having her voice heard, and did not receive the representation she deserved in this case.