It's interesting. I know a lot of fans didn't like the issues when Superman was seeing a therapist, but if he HAD to, would Lana make sense? Not sure I could answer that right away.
I think we should take away Lois' Pulitzer Prize-winning status. She should always be exceptionally good at what she does, but I think it might be more interesting if she were great yet not fully-appreciated. My understanding is that to win a Pulitzer,
you have to submit an entry, kind of like how an Emmy for local news reporting is selected. I think what's not up for compromise is if Lois is good at her job, but especially in this day and age, it's almost more believable or more enjoyable if either a) she didn't apply b) she lost to a sellout whose goal is to win awards, not tell a story with integrity or c) she probably should've won, but didn't get the award for whatever reason. It's like the writers of
Superman Returns and
Man of Steel had to mention "Pulitzer" in order for us to believe she's good, and I think that backfires.
EDIT: Actually, upon reconsideration, I'd say the
Returns just mentions that she's won Pulitzers so they can
tell us that she's good, without actually having to
show us. In
Man of Steel, it's just a clunky exposition line.