Daily Planet Article Outing Superman As Clark Kent Arrives Online

[Superlad93]

Oh man that's clever lol. They should do stuff like this way more often. They should have dedicated blogs for Clark, Lois, and Jim. They should have misspellings and everything. It would be the perfect way to generate buzz and to do little clever winks and nods to things.

Love this.

[vaf2675]

The promotional item "written" by Lois Lane exposes Superman's identity and hints at unrest in Metropolis.


Full article here.

Dick move Lane, dick move.

[ssupes]

Not ok ,but she doesn't have that personal connection with Barry that she does with clark. I guess it's just strange for me because growing up it's always been Lois AND Clark ( I still in my head canon think of her and him as married) and all of this just feels ......wrong

I get what you mean, in the end you ultimately enjoy comics that fit to your own personal cannon, not what DC makes "official".

[Tayswift]

I almost cried reading this, Lois character will take a long time to recover after all this badpress about her. The article is so badly written

[Cipher]

Going to pass on reading this (I don't think I could stomach a full article of fake comic-book journalism either -- not even Transmetropolitan could actually nail a publishable voice) and let the story play out as intended by Yang in the pages of the actual book.

Also, if not giving the subject the opportunity to tell his side of the story in the very first article made on the subject is bad journalism, then the guys who revealed the Watergate are bad reporters.

I'm pretty sure they did reach out to any party they were accusing of wrong-doing before running the articles. That source may deny their involvement, and you're still able to run the article with the information you have (that's actually part of their motivation to comment -- you may have enough to run the story regardless), but it's journalism 101 that you still have to reach out for comment.

So, yeah, Lois better have at least tried to talk to Clark before running her piece. Perry wouldn't be able to run it if she hadn't.

You do have to give each side the opportunity to tell their story. That doesn't mean you actually respect their wishes or give them equal weight in the article -- but you do reach out for comment. Then, as long as everything stands up to scrutiny, you present the facts you have.

[misslane]

But Clark isn't a source, he's the story. A source is someone who gives you information on the story you're working on, and keeping it a secret certainly never meant not writing the article. It's not the same situation at all. So what you're saying doesn't apply here. Also, if not giving the subject the opportunity to tell his side of the story in the very first article made on the subject is bad journalism, then the guys who revealed the Watergate are bad reporters.

I'm using to source to represent any subject who would be exposed by a news story. Your Watergate example doesn't work because it's a question of legitimate criminal wrongdoing. While it is potentially valuable to hold Superman accountable via exposure, Lois has no evidence that Clark as Clark or Superman has committed criminal offenses. He is not a threat. He deserves to have a voice in his own outing.

[misslane]

Oh man that's clever lol. They should do stuff like this way more often. They should have dedicated blogs for Clark, Lois, and Jim. They should have misspellings and everything. It would be the perfect way to generate buzz and to do little clever winks and nods to things.

Love this.

Really? Because I think the sloppiness of this piece pretty much confirms to me that unless these complementary pieces are written by good writers in collaboration with the title's writer and editor, they are damaging or at least worthless.

[Cipher]

I'm using to source to represent any subject who would be exposed by a news story. Your Watergate example doesn't work because it's a question of legitimate criminal wrongdoing. While it is potentially valuable to hold Superman accountable via exposure, Lois has no evidence that Clark as Clark or Superman has committed criminal offenses. He is not a threat. He deserves to have a voice in his own outing.

Superman is both a public figure and a vigilante (if a well-respected and sometimes civilly supported one). For that matter, Clark Kent is also a public figure and a staff member of the planet, who's been committing fraudulent journalism in their paper any time he's written about Superman or come up with an alternate explanation for how he obtained certain information; they could run that as a correction without input from him as an employee at all (no different from a paper acknowledging plagiarism from one of their writers). As for the article, though, as long as she approached him for comment, she's done her due diligence.

But I don't even think we're disagreeing here -- she would absolutely have to reach out for comment. Is there anything indicating she didn't? (This promotional article, maybe, which is part of the reason I haven't read it? (Fakey-fake comic-book-company understanding of journalism))

[Superlad93]

Really? Because I think the sloppiness of this piece pretty much confirms to me that unless these complementary pieces are written by good writers in collaboration with the title's writer and editor, they are damaging or at least worthless.

Doesn't mean the idea isn't a good one. Maybe the refine it more next time. But all in all I don't need it to be world class journalism or even close to that. Would be cool though if they got actual bloggers and stuff to ghost write as Clark Lois and Jim if they keep doing these things. The blog post wouldn't even have to relate to a current story in the DCYou. They could do some really clever things with this idea.

But yeah, "really", I do think this is a clever idea.

[misslane]

Superman is both a public figure and a vigilante (if a well-respected and sometimes civilly supported one). For that matter, Clark Kent is also a public figure and a staff member of the planet, who's been committing fraudulent journalism in their paper -- they could run that as a correction without input from him as an employee at all (no different from a paper acknowledging plagiarism from one of their writers). As for the article, though, as long as she approached him for comment, she's done her due diligence.

But I don't even think we're disagreeing here -- she would absolutely have to reach out for comment. Is there anything indicating she didn't? (This promotional article, maybe, which is part of the reason I haven't read it? (Fakey-fake comic-book-company understanding of journalism))

It is common, especially for good journalists, to include a reference to declined comments within their articles. This article didn't say anything about Clark declining to comment. If Lois did reach out to Clark, and he did decline to comment, then I'm left with the impression that Clark is an idiot. He may have had a chance to play some role in shaping his post-reveal narrative, and he gave it up? Why would he do something so stupid?

[misslane]

Doesn't mean the idea isn't a good one. Maybe the refine it more next time. But all in all I don't need it to be world class journalism or even close to that. Would be cool though if they got actual bloggers and stuff to ghost write as Clark Lois and Jim if they keep doing these things. The blog post wouldn't even have to relate to a current story in the DCYou. They could do some really clever things with this idea.

But yeah, "really", I do think this is a clever idea.

I think it's clever if it is done well. This piece is not a good sample of what DC could do with the idea. It provides evidence to the contrary, in fact.

[Superlad93]

I think it's clever if it is done well. This piece is not a good sample of what DC could do with the idea. It provides evidence to the contrary, in fact.

I don't understand what you're trying to prove or say to me. I never said the piece was done well. I literally just keep saying the idea is the clever part. You seem to agree. So that's that.

[Cipher]

It is common, especially for good journalists, to include a reference to declined comments within their articles. This article didn't say anything about Clark declining to comment. If Lois did reach out to Clark, and he did decline to comment, then I'm left with the impression that Clark is an idiot. He may have had a chance to play some role in shaping his post-reveal narrative, and he gave it up? Why would he do something so stupid?

It's like an editorial requirement to include a "declined to comment" statement, actually.

So, yeah, that missing in any form is really glaring and stupid. But that's ... yeah, that's exactly why I'm not down for these kinds of pieces. I'm going to give the book itself the benefit of the doubt and assume that Yang's done his homework on how this would actually have to play out.

I'm with misslane on the idea that if these aren't going to be done well, they shouldn't be done at all. But sloppy fake journalism is a huge pet peeve of mine, the way I know sloppy fake science can be to others, and both are destined to pop up again and again in genre fiction.

[misslane]

I don't understand what you're trying to prove or say to me. I never said the piece was done well. I literally just keep saying the idea is the clever part. You seem to agree. So that's that.

I'm not trying to prove anything or trying to argue with you. I'm sharing my point of view by jumping off of yours. I'm reiterating that the idea of doing these sort of things can be clever in the right hands.

[Jeremiah]

The 'article' is poorly written. They're botching the journalism angle to this story. But its not a shock. They don't understand Lois and Superman, the cornerstone of their profession. How could I expect them to understand a profession they don't even work in.