Jennifer Dulos, a mother of five from Farmington, Connecticut, disappeared in May 2019, leading to a high-profile case against her estranged husband, Fotis Dulos, and his girlfriend, Michelle Troconis. Fotis Dulos’s death prevented his trial from concluding, but Troconis was found guilty of conspiring to murder in March 2024.
This spring, I interned at the Connecticut Judicial Branch’s External Affairs Division. My role centered on media moderation and I was taught to pay close attention to word choice, especially in high-profile cases such as the Michelle Troconis trial. Watching the case unfold in real time and carefully monitoring hours of footage taught me to understand the true power of words. I began to think critically about my words and the words utilized by those around me — including by the media I consume.
If you’ve followed the case at all, you know that a comparison between Jennifer’s disappearance and the plot of Gillian Flynn’s novel Gone Girl preoccupied the media for weeks.
The “Gone Girl” comparison was initially sparked by a juror’s comment rather than the media itself. This juror was dismissed by Judge Kevin Randolph, who emphasized the requirement of a fair trial. Nevertheless, the media’s emphasis on this dismissal significantly sensationalized the narrative, illustrating the media’s power to amplify curated stories and affect public opinion.
Comparing Jennifer Dulos to Gone Girl perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes, reducing women to clichéd roles of victim or villain. Comparing real-life situations to fictional clichés oversimplifies complex circumstances, diminishing the depth of individuals involved and neglecting larger social and psychological factors. Such sensationalized comparisons can distort public perception and divert attention from critical issues that require a more nuanced understanding and concentration, like domestic violence. Focusing on sensational narratives detracts from understanding the dynamics of power, control, and abuse within relationships, undermining the complexity of cases like Jennifer Dulos’. It’s essential to acknowledge the unique experiences and complexities of these cases rather than reducing them to stereotypes or plotlines.
Journalists have ethical responsibilities when covering sensitive topics like the Jennifer Dulos case, including respecting the privacy and dignity of those involved, verifying information rigorously, and avoiding speculation or perpetuating harmful stereotypes. Journalists should express the truth fairly and justly; in no world are clickbait one-liners more important than this. May I suggest that the journalists who have done the Dulos family harm by writing such one-liners and unfair reporting, such as the Daily Express (Gone Girl debunked….) and Mercury News (Is the missing Jennifer Dulos a ‘Gone Girl?’) pursue other forms of media like gossip columns?
The adage “you are what you eat” extends beyond dietary habits to encompass the media we consume. Our perspectives and opinions are significantly shaped by our media diet, reflecting the power of news and information to influence our understanding of the world. The way media presents information through diction, structure, and other persuasive techniques plays a significant role in shaping our opinions and feelings, underscoring the potential for manipulation.
As readers, we must approach media consumption with caution to critically evaluate narratives. When reading about tragedies like this, empathy and understanding are paramount. Real people are involved, real people who deserve more than sensationalized headlines. Journalists and readers must handle discussions of human suffering with thoughtfulness. Remember, the Dulos family, including her children, may be affected by our words.
Jorge Espinoza-Gonzalez is a sophomore at Trinity College, majoring in Public Policy and Art History.