Superman issue # 20 preview

[Vordan]

Yeah see Perry's not the one who matters here. He and everyone else at the Planet are just as biased since they're also personal friends with the Kents (Hell, isn't Perry Jon's godfather?). But in the eyes of everyone outside the Daily Planet, this is all one HUGE conflict of interest. As often as Superhero stuff should be making the news, and you got the most well known Superhero there is working for your news team? And the woman who's been writing stories on him for years has also been sleeping with him for years (did she win any awards or honors from her stories on Superman. Realistically, there'd be demands to have those taken away)? And they're both close friends with the entire staff? That's a fucking goldmine of a scandal for other outlets to jump on.

Let's not even get into them also being parents who regularly allow their child (who might still legally be 10 or 11) to work as a hero. That's a whole lot of broken laws that can finally be pinned on someone. Especially with how often said child goes off without any supervision. Come on Bendis. You love (wrongly) talking about how outdated secret IDs are. Don't open the can of worms if you aren't gonna explore the obvious negative aspects as well as the positives. These people aren't like Marvel Heroes, who will gladly fight the law (like...literally fight) when it comes for them.

Oh yes they will. Remember Public Enemies? President Luthor is back in canon so I assume the events of his fall roughly are as well. And Clark fought the military as part of Johns Secret Origin. I may miss the New 52 origin but current Reborn Clark certainly isn’t a boot licker who will bend over for anyone with an ounce of “authority”.

Honestly though why do you want to see a “realistic” fallout? We saw that with Truth already. Clark got fired and everyone hated him. No real point rehashing that when we’re already redoing the “Superman loses his SI” plot. Let’s see something different if we have to go down this road again.

[Nelliebly]

Kal-El has been Superman's publicly known "real name" for a long time. So he's had a legal name to attach to things. So that really doesn't change anything. And Superman has never been treated like a "vigilante" he's been a public hero for the most part. If someone wanted to sue him, they could have sued him a long time ago. No one thought he had a secret identity anyways, so that wasn't what was preventing them. He's told them his Kryptonian name.

Clark writing about himself is an issue I suppose. But has Lois actually written about Superman like you're implying since the Silver Age? She's written with Clark, and used Superman as a source, but that's a little different than writing about Superman.

This. I’m not sure why people are acting like Lois’s entire career revolves around Superman. That’s condescending at best. This woman had a Pulitzer before even met Superman. She introduces him to the world and is the way people come to know him and trust him but her career is far beyond him. And they were not having sex when she introduced him to the world.

Also, I’m not sure why we are acting like the public would have been shocked that Lois and Superman were sleeping together. The photo and cheating scandal caught fire distinctly because it confirmed what people already suspected and knew. Everyone knew they had had sex. People didn’t know they were married and people didn’t know Clark was Superman but I thought it was pretty much common knowledge among the people that Lois Lane and Superman had a sexual relationship at some point after she introduced him to the public. That doesn’t mean her career revolves around him. Again, most of her awards were achieved before she even met him.

[rpmaluki]

This. I’m not sure why people are acting like Lois’s entire career revolves around Superman. That’s condescending at best. This woman had a Pulitzer before even met Superman. She introduces him to the world and is the way people come to know him and trust him but her career is far beyond him. And they were not having sex when she introduced him to the world.

Also, I’m not sure why we are acting like the public would have been shocked that Lois and Superman were sleeping together. The photo and cheating scandal caught fire distinctly because it confirmed what people already suspected and knew. Everyone knew they had had sex. People didn’t know they were married and people didn’t know Clark was Superman but I thought it was pretty much common knowledge among the people that Lois Lane and Superman had a sexual relationship at some point after she introduced him to the public. That doesn’t mean her career revolves around him. Again, most of her awards were achieved before she even met him.

This. I can't add any more.

[manwhohaseverything]

Clark not fighting the law is wierd proposition. He is the vigilante, before back in the day.he wore a freaking police badge on his chest. That's just what he used to be in characterisation. He was always on the run. Now, he is for the most part law enforcer. He isn't treated like a vigilante nor does he act like one,with exceptions ofcourse. Even, then it's temporary. It isn't permanent. Like, it was originally . Bendis just ended what was left of the vigilante ,By ending secret id. You can even call it, the birth of the superhero superman. Ofcourse, something had to die for that. The pulpfiction alien vigilante strongman is dead.
This is guy is gone.

This guy has fully taken over

[Ascended]

I'm personally not ruling it completely out.

The way Clark kind of goes (rightly so given past encounters) almost overboard in his assessment of Mongul even in these times of change kind of seems to whisper "but what if, tho". Mongul may end up being the one who turns over a new leaf? Maybe the way Clark beats him here is tied to his idenity reveal? How Mongul react to learning that Clark pretended to be just like everyone else isn't a given, I feel.

I also imagine this is also something of a swam song to Clark's old villains and the old format before 5G hits, right? It's almost like the Superman world's Ragnarok (as in the legit myth) where decades long loose ends are tied up before the stage is set anew.

We'll see. I'm not ruling such things out either, we're in uncharted waters. But Clark's assessment of Mongul might also be a commentary on the lack of depth many Super rogues have, and a farewell parade to them before 5G or the Earth President era bring in more complexly motivated villains. Who knows at this point?

[JAK]

This. I’m not sure why people are acting like Lois’s entire career revolves around Superman. That’s condescending at best. This woman had a Pulitzer before even met Superman. She introduces him to the world and is the way people come to know him and trust him but her career is far beyond him. And they were not having sex when she introduced him to the world.

Also, I’m not sure why we are acting like the public would have been shocked that Lois and Superman were sleeping together. The photo and cheating scandal caught fire distinctly because it confirmed what people already suspected and knew. Everyone knew they had had sex. People didn’t know they were married and people didn’t know Clark was Superman but I thought it was pretty much common knowledge among the people that Lois Lane and Superman had a sexual relationship at some point after she introduced him to the public. That doesn’t mean her career revolves around him. Again, most of her awards were achieved before she even met him.

Yeah, exactly - I'd always heard/figured that Lois's Pulitzer work wasn't for any stories relating to Superman. Work that gets those awards is for exposing information hidden to the public or an especially powerful human interest story. Superman saving the city is simply a more exciting version of "mayor gives speech" or describing any other occurrence as it happens. Important work, certainly, but not something that would get awards.

[LordUltimus]

I thought Lexcorp was still around. And hasn't Superman pissed off plenty of other 1%ers, like Morgan Edge and the like?

[Nelliebly]

Yeah, exactly - I'd always heard/figured that Lois's Pulitzer work wasn't for any stories relating to Superman. Work that gets those awards is for exposing information hidden to the public or an especially powerful human interest story. Superman saving the city is simply a more exciting version of "mayor gives speech" or describing any other occurrence as it happens. Important work, certainly, but not something that would get awards.

Also—-ALSO—-lets just address the elephant in the room.

There is a bit of slut shaming on this obsession and focus with who Lois has sex with. Greg Rucka touches on this a bit in Lois’s solo book but it’s relevant here.

Lois Lane was not having sex with Superman for “a story” or for information. He wasn’t some secret source feeding her info in exchange for sex. Their romantic and sexual relationship is, to be frank, no one’s business but their own. He was not the reason she was winning awards and her Pulitzer was almost certainly not connected to him.

I think it’s fair and reasonable to address their relationship IF it was some kind of ethical violation and, obviously, it was in poor taste when the public thought they were having an affair.

But there is always this lingering slut shaming that surrounds their relationship when stuff like this comes up and that’s a really slippery slope and uncool. Lois Lane was allowed to have sex with and marry whoever the hell she wanted. It’s no ones business unless there was a true conflict of interest and I don’t see any real evidence that there was. Therefore, it’s no one’s business but their own. The public does not have any rights to their bedroom.

[Blue22]

Good. I was hoping this was still going when I got home from work. I wasn't kidding when I said this was a topic I was into and wanna see explored. Blame the Journalism student in me lol

While clearly not ALL of Lois' awards and honors are for stuff she's written about Superman, nor does her career revolve around him, I still have to disagree that there is no conflict of interest in her writing articles about him while they are in a relationship and that anything she did win some kind of award for in regards to him should be called into question by the rest of DC's journalism community (sure, we as the readers know Lois is honorable to not let her relationship with Clark steer her articles in the wrong direction. But in universe, she'd probably look kinda sketchy now). Just like how there's a conflict with the Planet, who, as someone has pointed out, is known for being biased towards Superman and now knowingly has Superman on their payroll as one of their star reporters.

It's not about slut shaming (especially since Lois wasn't doing anything slutty...Clark and Supes are the same person) but no one in charge of ANY news station is gonna ask their reporter to cover a story on their own spouse/lover/family. Because even if that person is an honorable journalist, they automatically become an unreliable source to the readers. Because if the readers know about the relationship, they're going to call the reporter's integrity into question as well as the station for allowing that to happen in the first place. That's just how it goes. I mean, if you can get away with it then by all means. Unethical journalism happens all the time and sometimes you gotta be unethical for the sake of a story. But I'd still call it unethical journalism. You don't put your reporter on a story that they have as personal of an investment in as Lois has with Superman. Likewise, has Clark ever written anything about Superman? Because if he did that's an even bigger problem right there xD

[Korath]

Wait, wait, wait !

Why would anyone think Lois Pulitzer is due to reporting Superman ?

I mean, a lot of people here must know that I don't like Lois, nor Lois and Clark together but... it was stated (at elast in New 52, and I'm pretty sure it was also stated before and after it) that she was already a top reporter with a Pulitzer when Superman was barely starting his career.

I could see dumb morons doing that, in-universe, but they'd have to completely ignore their own natural timeline. Lois Lane gets a Pulitzer and then Superman appears are fact (at least to me).

I'm really confused now.

[Blue22]

For the record, I never said she won a Pulitzer for her writing on Superman.

[The World]

Superman's probably got at least as many fans as he does haters probably somewhere in the couple billion. Among those billions are probably millions that revere him to a near psychotic degree I mean we are talking about a guy who's had religions created in his name. If I was some DA or AG or whatever kind of prosecutor the idea that I might get publicly lynched or have my house firebombed, or workplace shot up by some vigilante trying to protect Superman's honor would probably be forefront of my mind.

[JAK]

Also—-ALSO—-lets just address the elephant in the room.

There is a bit of slut shaming on this obsession and focus with who Lois has sex with. Greg Rucka touches on this a bit in Lois’s solo book but it’s relevant here.

Lois Lane was not having sex with Superman for “a story” or for information. He wasn’t some secret source feeding her info in exchange for sex. Their romantic and sexual relationship is, to be frank, no one’s business but their own. He was not the reason she was winning awards and her Pulitzer was almost certainly not connected to him.

I think it’s fair and reasonable to address their relationship IF it was some kind of ethical violation and, obviously, it was in poor taste when the public thought they were having an affair.

But there is always this lingering slut shaming that surrounds their relationship when stuff like this comes up and that’s a really slippery slope and uncool. Lois Lane was allowed to have sex with and marry whoever the hell she wanted. It’s no ones business unless there was a true conflict of interest and I don’t see any real evidence that there was. Therefore, it’s no one’s business but their own. The public does not have any rights to their bedroom.

Do you mean in-universe, on the board, or both? In-universe, it could be (and has been, in the Lois book) used to show the inherent misogyny that still exists in modern society. I would say, even if it has no merit, some may think that there's some (albeit natural) informational advantage for her being romantically attached to Superman. That's only natural, even if misogyny still may play a bit part in that, as well.

While clearly not ALL of Lois' awards and honors are for stuff she's written about Superman, nor does her career revolve around him, I still have to disagree that there is no conflict of interest in her writing articles about him while they are in a relationship and that anything she did win some kind of award for in regards to him should be called into question by the rest of DC's journalism community (sure, we as the readers know Lois is honorable to not let her relationship with Clark steer her articles in the wrong direction. But in universe, she'd probably look kinda sketchy now). Just like how there's a conflict with the Planet, who, as someone has pointed out, is known for being biased towards Superman and now knowingly has Superman on their payroll as one of their star reporters.

That's going to depend on the nature of the articles written, and what universe we're talking about. For the comics universe, most of her Superman-centered writing would have been early-on, when they weren't yet together and Superman was *the* story and not just a part of it. Being a good journalist, I'd be very surprised if she crossed a certain line after their relationship got serious. References to Superman from that point would likely have been statements at the scene or to the press directly. Even so, there'd been a known connection between them and between Superman and the paper in general for years (Jimmy's Pal, etc), so while the impact would be huge... there's not too much that wasn't already there to a lesser degree.

It's not about slut shaming (especially since Lois wasn't doing anything slutty...Clark and Supes are the same person) but no one in charge of ANY news station is gonna ask their reporter to cover a story on their own spouse/lover/family. Because even if that person is an honorable journalist, they automatically become an unreliable source to the readers. Because if the readers know about the relationship, they're going to call the reporter's integrity into question as well as the station for allowing that to happen in the first place. That's just how it goes. I mean, if you can get away with it then by all means. Unethical journalism happens all the time and sometimes you gotta be unethical for the sake of a story. But I'd still call it unethical journalism. You don't put your reporter on a story that they have as personal of an investment in as Lois has with Superman. Likewise, has Clark ever written anything about Superman? Because if he did that's an even bigger problem right there xD

True, but that would again depend on the story. Lois covering a Superman fight with Brainiac has to do with Superman, but not in the same way that an expose' would. Going back to my first point, I'd be surprised if Lois took the second one too often after their relationship got serious.

Definitely agreed on Clark, though. As Perry said, citing Superman as a separate source alone would be rocky stuff. But that's why he "fired" him (before re-hiring him with the new understanding).


The one thing that's been surprising to me in all this, which should have clicked immediately given how Bendis set up Superman's world early-on, is that EVERYONE (99.999%) has at the very least a respect, if not an outright admiration of Superman. Even the villains. So, given that, it makes sense that this wouldn't have the same immediate negative impact that this would in, say, the New52 direction. And, while I admit an extreme bias here, I absolutely love that - it just seems "fitting" somehow.

[Yoda]

Superman's probably got at least as many fans as he does haters probably somewhere in the couple billion. Among those billions are probably millions that revere him to a near psychotic degree I mean we are talking about a guy who's had religions created in his name. If I was some DA or AG or whatever kind of prosecutor the idea that I might get publicly lynched or have my house firebombed, or workplace shot up by some vigilante trying to protect Superman's honor would probably be forefront of my mind.

There was nothing stopping him from being sued in universe as "Kal El". Anyone could have sued him in that capacity. Now getting a process server to the North Pole might take a bit of work. But even then he basically calls Metropolis his home so I'd serve him there.

Now I want a story of a superhero process server. Jumps off building yelling "Superman! Save me!" Then serves him when they land.

Wait, wait, wait !

Why would anyone think Lois Pulitzer is due to reporting Superman ?

I mean, a lot of people here must know that I don't like Lois, nor Lois and Clark together but... it was stated (at elast in New 52, and I'm pretty sure it was also stated before and after it) that she was already a top reporter with a Pulitzer when Superman was barely starting his career.

I could see dumb morons doing that, in-universe, but they'd have to completely ignore their own natural timeline. Lois Lane gets a Pulitzer and then Superman appears are fact (at least to me).

I'm really confused now.

Do you mean in-universe, on the board, or both? In-universe, it could be (and has been, in the Lois book) used to show the inherent misogyny that still exists in modern society. I would say, even if it has no merit, some may think that there's some (albeit natural) informational advantage for her being romantically attached to Superman. That's only natural, even if misogyny still may play a bit part in that, as well.

There is a definite subset of fans with the POV that seems to think Lois' characterization stopped progressing with a Silver Age stereotype as opposed to any of the modern writing or character history. So that is what I was addressing. Essentially that she'd be nothing without the stories Superman gives her or that she's so incompetent that she'd be dead. It's mostly Twitter nonsense, but there's some overlap. In the DCU itself we've seen the stuff in Lois' book and the way the Mayor responded to Clark.

While clearly not ALL of Lois' awards and honors are for stuff she's written about Superman, nor does her career revolve around him, I still have to disagree that there is no conflict of interest in her writing articles about him while they are in a relationship and that anything she did win some kind of award for in regards to him should be called into question by the rest of DC's journalism community (sure, we as the readers know Lois is honorable to not let her relationship with Clark steer her articles in the wrong direction. But in universe, she'd probably look kinda sketchy now). Just like how there's a conflict with the Planet, who, as someone has pointed out, is known for being biased towards Superman and now knowingly has Superman on their payroll as one of their star reporters.

It's not about slut shaming (especially since Lois wasn't doing anything slutty...Clark and Supes are the same person) but no one in charge of ANY news station is gonna ask their reporter to cover a story on their own spouse/lover/family. Because even if that person is an honorable journalist, they automatically become an unreliable source to the readers. Because if the readers know about the relationship, they're going to call the reporter's integrity into question as well as the station for allowing that to happen in the first place. That's just how it goes. I mean, if you can get away with it then by all means. Unethical journalism happens all the time and sometimes you gotta be unethical for the sake of a story. But I'd still call it unethical journalism. You don't put your reporter on a story that they have as personal of an investment in as Lois has with Superman.

There's definitely some issues with the the reporting given the relationship even as it was known to the public, because there was a some sort of public relationship between them (Rucka even had her being referred to as "Superman's Girlfriend" in his first Adventures of Superman run by villains) so there would be some kind of appearance of conflict since almost day one. As far as the comics themselves go in showing actual journalism, there's not much in the way of focus recently, but when you look at Event Leviathan and Heroes In Crisis she reported on stories that involved Superman, but really weren't directly about him. They are more stories that affect the entirety of the hero community. That's more or less how I've seen her work portrayed over the last few years. I don't recall if she's even been shown to use him as a source. It's possible, maybe in the Leviathan Rising story, but I don't recall that.

But I'd agree with JAK that Lois being the type of person and journalist she is would likely actively minimize the actual conflict with Clark once he told her who he was. Honestly, I attribute any stories that go against that as basically most writers neither knowing or caring enough about journalism to elaborate - Bendis actually was a journalist so that's likely why he's getting into the weeds here. Rucka as well.

Likewise, has Clark ever written anything about Superman? Because if he did that's an even bigger problem right there xD

Clark has definitely written stories about himself and quoted himself, I think we've seen Bendis show that on panel very recently. He directed Melody Moore to himself for the Invisible Mafia story as well.

[Ascended]

Wait, wait, wait !

I'm really confused now.

I don't think anyone is saying that Lois' awards (especially the Pulitzer) are from any articles she wrote about Superman, just that this raises ethical questions about the entire staff, and Lois, being Lois, is right in the middle of it. Everyone at the Planet, and everything they've done, is now suspect. And this *does* raise ethical questions, and we were discussing that long before this story was a gleam in Bendis' eye. The implications of Clark writing about Superman as if he were a different person, and benefiting financially from that subterfuge, has always been a source of debate here (though we talk about it less than other stuff). And Lois has been a part of that debate since she learned who Clark really was.

And we have to keep in mind, unless the Kents reveal a lot more information to the world, the public doesn't know what we know. We know that it took years before Clark revealed his identity to anyone at the Planet, and we know Clark didn't take grievous advantage of his situation. He even wrote a few harsh articles about Superman, matter of fact. But Joe Average living in New Troy doesn't know any of that. For all Joe knows, Clark, Lois and Perry and maybe everyone at the Planet have been in on it since Superman debuted, creating the news that has kept the company in business. People *should* have concerns about this and the integrity of journalism. Especially when they don't know what the reader does.