Genene Jones and Fair Coverage

[Joe_Smirtchfiel]

I stumbled on the crimelibrary.com com regarding the case of Genene Jones, a nurse charged with killing children in her care.

I don't know anything about this case except what I read on crimelibrary.com, but I must admit I was shocked. I don't think I have read a more biased account in a very long time. The slanted language in the account give me the impression that the author was more interested in juicing up the story than in giving a balanced account of the circumstances.

For example, this page says "A psychiatric exam failed to give her the testimony she would need for an insanity defense." It would have been more unbiased to state the facts clearly, that she was not judged insane. It certainly does not support the prosecutions claim "had a hero complex". Apparently the author did not want to be fair, so instead used implication to cast this positive information in a negative light.

There are similar examples of slanted language on every page of this story. For example, the phrase "While awaiting trial Jones supposedly told someone..." is third-hand hearsay. There is no proof that it happened, and no attempt to even identify who said it. Imagine this story was written about you, and ask yourself if this is unbiased reporting.

There were so many other examples. Here is one that bowled me over: "No one raised the possibility that Genene had acted out something that had been done to her as a child." That's like saying "Nobody blamed her crimes on her Nazi parents." Or "Nobody brought up whether the murders were related to a satanic cult." The author gives the reader the impression that something might have happened to Jones as a child, but give no proof at all. Maybe it was never brought up because it's not true.

I pray Genene Jones was guilty. If not, an innocent woman sits in prison. The children were already ill, so perhaps that's why they died. But if they were killed, I honestly hope that justice found their killer.

Whether that happened or not, this article contains dozens of slanted and unsubstantiated pseudofacts. The sheer number of them give every indication this article is a cynical attempt to profit from the misery of others.

[lildoxiedog]

I have read much more about this case than that one article and I have no doubt that this woman is guilty of what she is accused of.

Not only were these children her victims, but the family of the children, her co-workers, the hospitals she worked for and the pediatrician she almost ruined. I have no sympathy for her whatsoever.

As for the slant of the story, I think most writing as well as news broadcasts have at least a slight slant to them. I like the way the stories are written at CL. That is one of the reasons I enjoy the website. It's more interesting than a site that presents straight facts. I'm an intelligent adult and quite capable of looking past the slant and drawing my own conclusions. I think most of CL stories give a pretty good background on the people featured. I enjoy the site and the content, JMHO. I urge you to try some other stories before you decide if that is the only one you have read.