How decorated of a journalist should Lois be?

[Osiris-Rex]

Maybe I'll start a new thread once I get my ducks in a row and have an hour or whatever to spell out my thoughts. I could call it "How decorated of a journalist should Lois be?" Or you or someone else can get it started and I'll reply when possible. I have a lot of thoughts about it, real and fictional-world related.

Challenge accepted. If the TV version of Kara Danvers can win a Pulitzer then I would think a reporter that has been a reporter for a lot longer like Lois Lane should be able too. There has to have been
a story in Lois's career as important as exposing Lex Luthor's manipulations.

[manwhohaseverything]

Lois can be as decorated as the story teller wants. As long as, the readers get conveyed the feeling that it's earned through actual events in story. Just show us how she got the award, even as a flashback or something.

[seismic-2]

In the same way that Batman is the World's Greatest Detective, Lois is the World's Greatest Investigative Reporter. It's her superpower.

[Jon Clark]

Once again I prefer that Superman's cast not be full of exceptional people. In Lois' case that means she should be a working reporter but not one with any name recognition. Lois shouldn't be listed with Woodward, Bernstein, and Thompson. She doesn't need to be a 2010 Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, or Edward R Murrow. Lois is smart, hardworking and dedicated but neither she nor Clark (prior to the ID reveal) should have deductive skills that are on the level of Batman, Vic Sage, or Detective Chimp. Being the main supporting cast member shouldn't make her superhero material. Outside of her reporting on Superman, she should not be any more awarded or noticed than any run of the mill LA or New York reporter.

[Jon Clark]

In the same way that Batman is the World's Greatest Detective, Lois is the World's Greatest Investigative Reporter. It's her superpower.

But Lois isn't a superhero, nothing about her should be called a superpower outside of tongue in cheek banter.

[manwhohaseverything]

But Lois isn't a superhero, nothing about her should be called a superpower outside of tongue in cheek banter.

She beat harley quinn in apocalypse war and i loved it.

[Gaius]

I’m fine with Lois eventually becoming a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist but, outside of some retold origins, I’d rather her not quite be at that level when she and Clark first meet.

[seismic-2]

But Lois isn't a superhero, nothing about her should be called a superpower outside of tongue in cheek banter.

Lois is an exceptional woman, which is why Superman is attracted to her. Lana was Clark's girl-next-door, but he considers Lois to be the ideal female (and he is friends with Wonder Woman!). As for her being a "superhero", one reason that Clark felt comfortable about marrying her is his belief that even though she goes on very dangerous assignments, she is capable of taking care of herself when he's not around.

[Tzigone]

I’m fine with Lois eventually becoming a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist but, outside of some retold origins, I’d rather her not quite be at that level when she and Clark first meet.

I think she has to be at that level already when they meet, because if she isn't, it opens up the narrative that she only became award-winning because of Superman and his assistance. That she didn't earn it or deserve it. That is not okay with me. It's like early on Tana didn't get taken seriously as a reporter because Superboy basically decided to like her and give her (his) stories on a platter. Don't want that for Lois.

Once again I prefer that Superman's cast not be full of exceptional people

While I do want more non-exceptional people as supporting characters in general, I think Superman is more suited to having more exceptional ones than most - it takes something to be a reporter on a big paper like that. It's the gig that everyone wants - competition is there. It's not where you'd expect to find the mid-tier workers.

More than that, though, Lois herself is exceptional to me. It is, to me, a fundamental part of her character. Hasn't always been that way, and I acknowledge that, but it has been for a long time, was when I was introduced to her, and is something really important to me about her. And if she is that exceptional and turns in the kind of stories we see her turn in the comic, she is going to be very well-known, at least inside the field. Also, again based on the versions I first came to know, Lois is a very competitive person striving for the best to me, so should end up at the best paper. And since they aren't leaving the DP, the DP is the best paper. So yes, the best reporter at the best paper in the world. That's what Lois is to me.

As I see it, for Lois not to be exceptional and well-recognized, we have two options. The first is she stop turning in amazing stories (with evidence to back them). Either she doesn't cover them or ends up scooped (possibly by Clark, as in the old days, though hopefully without the laughing-up-his-sleeve aspect I loathed). In that event, she either loses constantly or just doesn't pursue things or get involved in the story. Very sad to me, as I love her. And, really, her being so involved is why so many other heroes ended up dating reporters. The other option is that she does get the stories, but they don't get printed - that casts Perry as the bad guy and makes her look bad for staying at a paper that operates that way.

[Jon Clark]

Lois is an exceptional woman, which is why Superman is attracted to her. Lana was Clark's girl-next-door, but he considers Lois to be the ideal female (and he is friends with Wonder Woman!). As for her being a "superhero", one reason that Clark felt comfortable about marrying her is his belief that even though she goes on very dangerous assignments, she is capable of taking care of herself when he's not around.

There is exceptional and then there is ridiculous.

[Yoda]

There is exceptional and then there is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous about her being a decorated journalist and one of the best investigative reporters in the DCU?

[Nelliebly]

There is exceptional and then there is ridiculous.

Sara Ganin won the Pulitzer Prize a few years ago in her 20’s because she was the reporter who exposed Jerry Sandusky and broke the Penn State scandal wide open.

It is not a ridiculous goal or accomplishment for a woman to win the Pulitzer Prize. It’s ::rare::, in part, because institutionalized sexism means it’s harder for a woman to have an equal shot at this award (statistics show that female reporters have to be more successful then men do to win and get fewer opportunities to do so) but it’s not ::ridiculous:—it does and can happen. There are female reporters among us who are this heroic.

I don’t feel like repeating my entire point on this but it’s astounding to me that in an aspirational story about a man who can literally FLY that apparently the part that is too “ridiculous” and just a step too far is the female heroine—a heroine generations of women look up to—being recognized as the best in her field.

Lois Is not just any supporting cast member—she’s the deurtoagonist of the narrative. She’s the female lead. And she deserves to be allowed to be exceptional and recognized and appreciated as part of this aspirational story.

[DochaDocha]

Heh, nice.

I'll just post hit-and-run style since I haven't really collected my thoughts.

Whether she's won awards or not, she should be excellent at her job. The award isn't necessary to validate your greatness. Susan Lucci didn't need that Emmy, Leo didn't his Oscar, and Albert Belle didn't need the 1995 American League MVP to prove they were great at what they did. There's a lot of bureaucracy your application has to go through for you to win, and that's not really something you can influence directly simply by doing your job better. So when I originally proposed whether she should have a Pulitzer, it's not to say she should be written as a less-competent journalist. It just means she's otherwise the same (skilled) person but without the recognition from Columbia University, which, for emphasis, is not the only barometer of how good that person is at her job.

Honestly, whenever in this type of fiction they say so-and-so has been given an award, it's usually some shorthand to indicate that the character is elite on the job. You could remove it altogether from, say, Man of Steel, and practically nothing changes except you removed a clunky line of exposition. The good parts of the movie actually show us she's good at her job. Fantastic, actually; she's the only person who was able to piece together all of the clues that Clark Kent was the mystery guy (believable or not). Compare that to Superman Returns where her award-winning column on "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman?" is more telling us that she's good and is largely the extent to which journalism plays a piece in her role of the movie. As an aside, I'd prefer that if she won such an award, it would be for investigative reporting, one of the 15 categories for which Pulitzers are awarded. And since we're talking movies, I can't say Superman I, II, or IV needed that kind of exposition, either. Nobody thinks less of the character because they didn't show a bunch of plaques on her wall.

As for the specific Pulitzer itself, the application process I think influences how any story of winning the prize should be written. Someone has to submit the piece, fill out the application form, pay the $75 application fee, etc. I kind of like a story where Lois is like "I don't care about awards, just doing my job right." Or maybe when she was younger (entry-level journalists make $#!t pay... my good buddy's first job paid him <$18k for a full-time gig...) she figured it was a bad way to spend $75. I also like the idea that Perry White's general motivation is he thinks not pushing his people to win awards is a way to keep them hungry and motivated so he himself never has someone submit an application on his staffers' behalf. On the other hand, Clark Kent would absolutely do it for Lois, which I didn't think about prior to this thread, so that changes my original opinion a little.

I think if her best work got submitted routinely, she'd eventually win, but that's, of course, contingent upon submission. Also, I think I commented prior that it'd be more interesting to see her win her first award in the pages of a comic/on screen than just be introduced as X-time Pulitzer Winner, Lois Lane.

[Nelliebly]

Once again I prefer that Superman's cast not be full of exceptional people. In Lois' case that means she should be a working reporter but not one with any name recognition. Lois shouldn't be listed with Woodward, Bernstein, and Thompson. She doesn't need to be a 2010 Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, or Edward R Murrow. Lois is smart, hardworking and dedicated but neither she nor Clark (prior to the ID reveal) should have deductive skills that are on the level of Batman, Vic Sage, or Detective Chimp. Being the main supporting cast member shouldn't make her superhero material. Outside of her reporting on Superman, she should not be any more awarded or noticed than any run of the mill LA or New York reporter.

Why does Lois, as the female lead of the franchise, have to be kept on a certain “level”? Why is it a problem for Superman if this woman, with zero superpowers, has her own extraordinary achievements? Why is she not allowed to have those things? She has to stay down...for what? So it doesn’t threaten him? Because that’s how this sounds.

[Nelliebly]

Heh, nice.

I'll just post hit-and-run style since I haven't really collected my thoughts.

Whether she's won awards or not, she should be excellent at her job. The award isn't necessary to validate your greatness. Susan Lucci didn't need that Emmy, Leo didn't his Oscar, and Albert Belle didn't need the 1995 American League MVP to prove they were great at what they did. There's a lot of bureaucracy your application has to go through for you to win, and that's not really something you can influence directly simply by doing your job better. So when I originally proposed whether she should have a Pulitzer, it's not to say she should be written as a less-competent journalist. It just means she's otherwise the same (skilled) person but without the recognition from Columbia University, which, for emphasis, is not the only barometer of how good that person is at her job.

Honestly, whenever in this type of fiction they say so-and-so has been given an award, it's usually some shorthand to indicate that the character is elite on the job. You could remove it altogether from, say, Man of Steel, and practically nothing changes except you removed a clunky line of exposition. The good parts of the movie actually show us she's good at her job. Fantastic, actually; she's the only person who was able to piece together all of the clues that Clark Kent was the mystery guy (believable or not). Compare that to Superman Returns where her award-winning column on "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman?" is more telling us that she's good and is largely the extent to which journalism plays a piece in her role of the movie. As an aside, I'd prefer that if she won such an award, it would be for investigative reporting, one of the 15 categories for which Pulitzers are awarded. And since we're talking movies, I can't say Superman I, II, or IV needed that kind of exposition, either. Nobody thinks less of the character because they didn't show a bunch of plaques on her wall.

As for the specific Pulitzer itself, the application process I think influences how any story of winning the prize should be written. Someone has to submit the piece, fill out the application form, pay the $75 application fee, etc. I kind of like a story where Lois is like "I don't care about awards, just doing my job right." Or maybe when she was younger (entry-level journalists make $#!t pay... my good buddy's first job paid him <$18k for a full-time gig...) she figured it was a bad way to spend $75. I also like the idea that Perry White's general motivation is he thinks not pushing his people to win awards is a way to keep them hungry and motivated so he himself never has someone submit an application on his staffers' behalf. On the other hand, Clark Kent would absolutely do it for Lois, which I didn't think about prior to this thread, so that changes my original opinion a little.

I think if her best work got submitted routinely, she'd eventually win, but that's, of course, contingent upon submission. Also, I think I commented prior that it'd be more interesting to see her win her first award in the pages of a comic/on screen than just be introduced as X-time Pulitzer Winner, Lois Lane.

This is all well and good. But the real life pink elephant here is that there is a sexist element involved in the way these prizes are awarded and we understand, collectively, that it’s harder for women to WIN them.

So, it’s not a matter of “oh Lois wouldn’t care about awards.” It’s not just about the award. It’s about what’s right and women being recognized for their achievements when they are truly the best. It’s easy for you to say awards don’t matter when you aren’t the one who would be discriminated against if you applied for it.

There is a larger component to this that shouldn’t be separated from this anymore than the nuances of immigration and assimilation should be separated from Clark’s narrative.

Women don’t look up to Lois because she had a Pulitzer. They love her because she’d brave and smart and vulnerable and compassionate etc. But the idea that she could achieve that which is elusive to a lot of other women is part of the power fantasy and women are allowed power fantasies too. Superman is not the only power fantasy in this story and I think sometimes you guys forget that fact because it’s not ::your:: power fantasy.

If you can accept and understand that Superman himself is exceptional and a power fantasy than it should not be ridiculous to accept that Lois is too in her own way.