Knox's friends interviewed for ABC News: speaking a lot, saying very little
Can somebody explain to me how this interview from ABC News is the slightest bit newsworthy?
The article, which was first published December 14 and features four of Amanda Knox's UW friends espousing the virtues of their incarcerated pal, brings little to the table: the news it provides is largely available elsewhere already, and the bulk of it is - perhaps not surprisingly - light-hearted opinion. They paint her as a morally infallible, girl-next-door type who simply could not have been involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. I don't know Knox, so I can't argue with the first part of this claim...but how it automatically leads to the second is beyond me.
To put it simply, this interview is something better suited for the UW Daily, or perhaps a "Free Amanda" blog. But ABC News? C'mon.
The money quote:
Nobody knows exactly what goes through another human being's mind. All the things that these people are saying, about a good friend who gave great hugs and loved "making people happy"...all this is good and fine, and could very well be true. But it doesn't mean she's automatically exempt from suspicion in a murder case that she has inexplicably found herself at the center of.
On a similar note: I should set the record straight on something I've been getting some flack about from readers. On one side, I've got Knox supporters chiming in and saying that I've painted her unfairly. On the other side, folks are bitter that I'm casting doubt on other witnesses or information that makes her look bad in an attempt to prove her innocence.
The fact of the matter is, neither of these claims are true.
Look. I'm a skeptic. I'm skeptical of everyone involved in this case, from the main suspects themselves to even the most unimportant witness. My job is to make calls on this case, and on the news surrounding it, as I see 'em. And the fact that I can't win with folks on either side of the debate in many ways reaffirms my belief that I'm doing my job right.
The article, which was first published December 14 and features four of Amanda Knox's UW friends espousing the virtues of their incarcerated pal, brings little to the table: the news it provides is largely available elsewhere already, and the bulk of it is - perhaps not surprisingly - light-hearted opinion. They paint her as a morally infallible, girl-next-door type who simply could not have been involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. I don't know Knox, so I can't argue with the first part of this claim...but how it automatically leads to the second is beyond me.
To put it simply, this interview is something better suited for the UW Daily, or perhaps a "Free Amanda" blog. But ABC News? C'mon.
The money quote:
"The media took all these things off her MySpace, you know, very out of context, and applied them how they felt they could twist their story the way they wanted to," said Andrew. "You can do that with anyone's MySpace. You could take their pictures, their blogs and take different pieces here and there. And all of a sudden, you have this new person, that you've just created."I'm not saying that Knox's friends don't deserve a chance to voice their feelings. Of course they do. But they are friends of the suspect, and it is fairly obvious the reaction that they're going to have. The fact that they claim to know any better than the rest of us whether Knox is guilty or innocent is obscene.
Nobody knows exactly what goes through another human being's mind. All the things that these people are saying, about a good friend who gave great hugs and loved "making people happy"...all this is good and fine, and could very well be true. But it doesn't mean she's automatically exempt from suspicion in a murder case that she has inexplicably found herself at the center of.
On a similar note: I should set the record straight on something I've been getting some flack about from readers. On one side, I've got Knox supporters chiming in and saying that I've painted her unfairly. On the other side, folks are bitter that I'm casting doubt on other witnesses or information that makes her look bad in an attempt to prove her innocence.
The fact of the matter is, neither of these claims are true.
Look. I'm a skeptic. I'm skeptical of everyone involved in this case, from the main suspects themselves to even the most unimportant witness. My job is to make calls on this case, and on the news surrounding it, as I see 'em. And the fact that I can't win with folks on either side of the debate in many ways reaffirms my belief that I'm doing my job right.
I reckon the Italian cops hit that girl,
I still think she is as guilty as heck, but, one is not supposed to hit suspects, especially young women.
Women react different to guys, it is just possible a girl who is tapped might spout stuff that is drivel.
I still think she is a cashed up druggie, who hung out with creeps, but that ain't the point. A murder requires a legitimate collar.
No slapping, and no 12 hour interview specials.
she deaearved to be hit, some one should slapp the **ing truth out of her. For the sake of Meredith and her family.