Is now the time for a Daily Planet comic?

[Ascended]

He's also better suited for a title that's more wordy and political then action or spectacle based, if that's your preference for a Daily Planet book.

Plus, if said book focuses on Lois Lane rather then Clark Kent/Superman, you probably don't have to worry about his treatment of the main character.

I think by its nature a book like this would have to avoid traditional action troupes. What would they do? Give Lois Lane a plasma rifle and have her leading the charge against Despero on a regular basis? (I mean, once in a while would be cool, but....)

But there are other ways to handle it. Consider the scene in Batman v Superman where Bruce tried to save the people in his office building during the Clark-Zod fight. He's not part of the action, the combatants don't even know he's there, but it's still a engaging action sequence full of physical danger and emotional beats.

That's how you handle it; Lois and her cameraman running into the dust and smoke and rubble as pissed off gods try to kill each other. Lois, dodging stray energy blasts and collapsing buildings, with a non-stop rapport for her live-streaming viewers, and helping people she comes across as she does it. Lois and her cameraman, trying to be capture a weapons sale between Intergang and Kobra on film, getting caught by henchmen, and having to escape.

It'd be different, which is a strength you play into. Coates could do it.

I disagree, I actually find it annoying to have to read multiple sources to see what the other side left out.

As for fiction automatically being biased by your political views, I think to the degree that you might highlight certain topics over others but many writers of fiction do a great job of masking their political leanings. A solid editor could help balance the content tackled. I also think Ascended is right on a big part of the focus being on DCU things and keeping multiple viewpoints represented. Being able to write differing political voices earnestly would be a must. No endless stawman slanting.

I think attacking real world specific people will only lead to divisiveness.

Oh, you'd absolutely have to use proxies. Using real-world people and events would be terrible.

And the idea that the media is politically neutral is a complete falsehood. There's damn few news networks left that are actually apolitical, most of them are strung out on one side or the other. That's not news, its an opinion, when the world needs facts and the common sense to come to their own conclusions. Which seems like a great reason to make sure your Planet comic shows everyone how it's done. Journalism as a super power for truth, that's your hook.

It'd be easy. Have Lois interviewing, say, the dictator of a small nation (we'll say Pokolistan) currently deep in a civil rebellion. Do a little research into Syria, see what Assad has to say for himself, and write your dialogue spewing the same propaganda for your fictional ruler. Have Lois counter with pointed questions, write solid dialogue that doesnt actively call out the other side.

After the interview you can have Lois say "What a f**king a**hole!" if you want to, but you've avoided telling your readers what to think. You've told them what Lois thinks, and provided some facts for both sides, and left it at that.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

And the idea that the media is politically neutral is a complete falsehood.

Taking a neutral approach to the news does not mean not giving one party more positive (or negative) coverage than the other, it means treating every issue as a high school debate.

CNN has been the best example of this in recent years.

Too often, things that are completely false are phrased as questions. If a politician says something that is clearly false, instead of just flatly stating that it's false, there will be a panel where some people will argue that it's false and others will argue that it isn't, or try to downplay the misinformation.

Whether the moderator corrects those that are wrong or not, the discussed issue becomes a matter of opinion rather than what the facts are because the facts are presented as up to debate.

Presenting the facts doesn't mean offering every perspective without making it absolutely clear which argument has no basis or evidence to support it. If someone's doing a piece on the first moon landing, they aren't going to consult people that think it was faked and treat that argument as equally valid to the common knowledge that it was real. If writing a piece about the debate to teach creationism in schools as an equally valid alternative to evolution, the piece wouldn't treat creationism and evolution as of having equal standing.

Journalists aren't supposed to just to repeat what people have told them, nor are they just interviewers, they're supposed to discern what the truth is and report it to the best of their ability.

What you're describing is a one on one interview, which is a small part of what journalist would do. Given your example, let's say during such a interview, Lois asks about a bunch of dead bodies that were discovered buried in the region he rules over. The dictator says that there were no bodies and it's just propaganda. Lois says there is photographic evidence, the dictator says the photos are fake/photoshopped.

When writing about her interview, should she treat the existence of the buried bodies as up to debate? Should it be left unanswered whether the photos were fake or not? Or should she mention that tests were run to determine the authenticity of the photos and the tests determined that they were real?

I don't know if you're read about Gene Miller's Pulitzer prize winning stories that exonerated innocent men that had been falsely convicted, but he didn't approach his stories as if either side had a equal chance of been right or wrong. In the pursuit of the truth, he made the case that they were innocent, not: "They could be innocent, or they could be guilty. You decide".

You're right that reporters shouldn't be telling people what they must believe, but presenting the facts, pursuing the truth means that if you're a writing story that has more than side to it, not all sides are going to be treated as equally valid.

[Ascended]

You're right that reporters shouldn't be telling people what they must believe, but presenting the facts, pursuing the truth means that if you're a writing story that has more than side to it, not all sides are going to be treated as equally valid.

Certainly. Clearly I didnt explain myself too well (I need to stop posting late at night). Examining both sides doesnt mean they're equal, it means you're giving equal attention to both sides. If one side happens to be right and have facts on their side, that's what you report. If the other side has nothing but lies and fear mongering to their arguments, thats what you report too, to the detriment of their argument.

Okay, using your "bodies found in a ditch" example, obviously Lois wouldn't just take the Assad style lies as viable, but she'd counter with "we've had experts verify the authenticity of the photos as well as witness statements. The bodies were there, and if you want to keep lying, fine, but we'll also be showing the process that went into verifying those photos in the article, so are you sure this is your official position?"

Reporting the facts, in that case, also involve reporting the fact that the dictator lied.

Before CNN became what it is now, their hosts used to call people out for their crap. That's what I would expect from Lois.

Now, let's say that Lois is doing a report on a government official who wants to ban aliens from entering American airspace, because so many aliens are terrible world conquering monsters (especially the ones from Vega. Vega isn't sending us their best!). Of course Lois is going to bring up all the giant, huge flaws with such a plan, but she's gotta check on the politician's side too. He says 95% of aliens are trying to conquer the world? Check it. He says that this will stimulate the economy by creating 27,000 jobs? Fact check it. There's going to be a pile of BS in the politician's claim that needs to be reported on, but if he has a point buried in there, that deserves a mention too. So that article might eventually look like "This guy says these things, which are not true. He says these other things, and leading experts disagree. He is right about this one other thing though, that statement is accurate."

[Tony]

I'm still not convinced the reporting has to be on so on the nose political topics. The Supergirl TV show recently did stuff on illegal aliens and global warming but sometimes it was a little cringe worthy. I think it was Word Balloon but I can't remember for sure but Scott Lobdell said he had pitched real world events to be covered by Lois and Clark but DC always rejected it because they didn't want the controversy.

I actually don't think the stories should all be political. NPR's website used to be amazing. The ranges of topics it covered put any TV broadcast to shame, but half the value came from the comments section where people would weigh in back and forth and it added so much to the stories it was the only news source I felt I needed. If you wanted to fact check a comment it was just a quick google search.

Then this crappy election happened and whatever excuse they want to peddle as to why they shut down discussion I will always believe they felt overwhelmed by backlash from the right and the left and got tired of being called out on articles for bias. The Bernie and trump supporters found some common ground in hating the pro Hilary slant and debate was the casualty.

I think you could write a story about corruption on a myriad of topics that don't need to be about current politics or just exposing crime like the old days of Intergang. Could do a lot of stories I would think.

If you really wanted to do a lot of politics maybe you could do co-writers each in charge of half the planet staff and half the page count of the book or maybe alternate issues like Gotham Central. Get a Chuck Dixon for the right and Mark Russell for the left and an editor with a strong journalism background

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Certainly. Clearly I didnt explain myself too well (I need to stop posting late at night). Examining both sides doesnt mean they're equal, it means you're giving equal attention to both sides. If one side happens to be right and have facts on their side, that's what you report. If the other side has nothing but lies and fear mongering to their arguments, thats what you report too, to the detriment of their argument.

Saying that one side shouldn't be called out is what threw me off.

Because if one side is wrong, and you point out that they are wrong, that to me would count as calling them out.

Okay, using your "bodies found in a ditch" example, obviously Lois wouldn't just take the Assad style lies as viable, but she'd counter with "we've had experts verify the authenticity of the photos as well as witness statements. The bodies were there, and if you want to keep lying, fine, but we'll also be showing the process that went into verifying those photos in the article, so are you sure this is your official position?"

In this case, I was using an example where the photos were verified after the interview, so that she couldn't say that they had been verified during the interview, or that if the dictator said the people that had verified it (let's say the US government), weren't trustworthy, so after the interview the Daily Planet interdependently verifies the authenticity of the photos and Lois mentions that in her article.

[Ascended]

I'm still not convinced the reporting has to be on so on the nose political topics. The Supergirl TV show recently did stuff on illegal aliens and global warming but sometimes it was a little cringe worthy. I think it was Word Balloon but I can't remember for sure but Scott Lobdell said he had pitched real world events to be covered by Lois and Clark but DC always rejected it because they didn't want the controversy.

It has gotten lost in the discussion, but as I originally said the book would have to be rooted deeply in the action/events of the DCU. So while political stories would be a part of it, the larger chunk would be things like alien invasions, violent demon-cults, super-villains, stuff like that. They'd have to run stories on "President Knight: Skilled POTUS or New God Android In Disguise?" and "The Batman: Who is Under the Cowl?" as well as stories about Dominators attacking earth, Atlantis joining the UN, Metallo's latest rampage, the newest cosmic energy fueled car, living conditions in Khandaq, Black Canary's latest album, etc.

Saying that one side shouldn't be called out is what threw me off.

Because if one side is wrong, and you point out that they are wrong, that to me would count as calling them out.

Yeah, poor word choice on my part.

In this case, I was using an example where the photos were verified after the interview, so that she couldn't say that they had been verified during the interview, or that if the dictator said the people that had verified it (let's say the US government), weren't trustworthy, so after the interview the Daily Planet interdependently verifies the authenticity of the photos and Lois mentions that in her article.

I think we're on the same page.

[SuperCrab]

I think by its nature a book like this would have to avoid traditional action troupes.

Hey, Ron Troupe should be an integral part of any Daily Planet comic! The man is a beloved social commentator and has won many awards. How dare you dismiss him like that?

I should mention, in case the emoticon doesn't tip it off, I'm joking. I know Ascended wasn't talking about Ron.

[Ascended]

Hey, Ron Troupe should be an integral part of any Daily Planet comic! The man is a beloved social commentator and has won many awards. How dare you dismiss him like that?

Ha!

You've actually given me an idea. We're going all in on Ron "Action" Troupe.

He's going to be the uber-nerdy, liberal, award winning equivalent of what Clark Kent would be like if he were *only* Clark Kent. But Troupe is the guy who always ends up in the thickest hot spots. The guy who tries like hell to avoid trouble on any level, and inevitably ends up being the guy who has to use an alien plasma rifle to cut his way out of an underground bunker set to explode in ten seconds with a swarm of laser-pawed robot bunnies chasing him.