How decorated of a journalist should Lois be?

[Gaius]

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.

Yes, hadn't really considered that. I was more getting at, like other's have said, every supporting character for a hero to be completely exceptional people since I think it tends to undermine the main hero by making them less unique but for Lois it does make sense for her character to be at that top-level when Clark first comes to Metropolis.

[Jon Clark]

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.

It basically sounds like you want her to “know her place” and to stay in her place. God forbid she be too successful. It sounds a heck of a lot like the kind of stuff real female reporters are told all the time to keep them down and from usurping men.

One, she is not the female lead of the franchise. She is a supporting character. The same as Jimmy, Perry, Martha, and Lex. That's why she has a 12-issue mini and not an on-going series. It's why no one has made a Lois Lane movie.

Two my criticism isn't that Lois is a woman who achieves impressive things, it's the increasing need for heroes to surround themselves with only equals. The fact that every person a hero interacts with on a regular basis is either another hero or someone at the very top of their field. Can't have Superman dating the 1,203rd greatest reporter, can we? And, of course, she has to be able to impress Batman with her investigative skills. Plus hey, she can kick the ass of the Eradicator. Why not. Superman couldn't possibly want to date a girl who writes the lovelorn column because no o0ne is letting her get her foot in the door as an actual beat reporter. Heaven forbid she nopt be someone whose very name strikes fear into crooked people's hearts.

[Nelliebly]

Yes, hadn't really considered that. I was more getting at, like other's have said, every supporting character for a hero to be completely exceptional people since I think it tends to undermine the main hero by making them less unique but for Lois it does make sense for her character to be at that top-level when Clark first comes to Metropolis.

Literally no one is arguing that every single supporting character in comics be exceptional. They are arguing that Lois Lane, the first female character in superhero comics who has co-anchored her own TV show in prime time (and is about to do it again) , is exceptional.

[Nelliebly]

One, she is not the female lead of the franchise. She is a supporting character. The same as Jimmy, Perry, Martha, and Lex. That's why she has a 12-issue mini and not an on-going series. It's why no one has made a Lois Lane movie.

Two my criticism isn't that Lois is a woman who achieves impressive things, it's the increasing need for heroes to surround themselves with only equals. The fact that every person a hero interacts with on a regular basis is either another hero or someone at the very top of their field. Can't have Superman dating the 1,203rd greatest reporter, can we? And, of course, she has to be able to impress Batman with her investigative skills. Plus hey, she can kick the ass of the Eradicator. Why not. Superman couldn't possibly want to date a girl who writes the lovelorn column because no o0ne is letting her get her foot in the door as an actual beat reporter. Heaven forbid she nopt be someone whose very name strikes fear into crooked people's hearts.

Your first point is so obviously off base it doesn’t even really need a response but suffice it to say it’s ridiculous to say that Lois Lane is no different in stature than Jimmy, Perry or Martha. I love all of those characters but that’s absolutely ridiculous.

You are correct that there has been no Lois Lane movie but there most definitely was a freaking TV show watched by over 20 million people with her name in the title that a lot of people watched and liked. And there is about to be another show with her name in the TITLE. I love the actors who have played Jimmy and Perry white over the years but their characters are not at the level of female that Margot Kidder, Teri Hatcher, Erica Durance and Amy Adams achieved. If and when they greenlight a literal TV show watched my millions of people called “Perry and Clark” than you may have a point but they won’t.

She’s the female lead. Always has been. Always will be. I’m sorry that bothers you so much.

Second, I’m not sure why you are going on and on about what Lois’s success means to who Clark or dating or to Batman. Her success doesn’t have to be measured against them. Her life exists outside of Superman and, believe it or not, the women who love her don’t actually care about her being a great reporter because of how it makes ::Superman:: look because she’s not a possession or accessory only to him. She’s a character with her own agency and goals and fan base and her success as a journalist is about her and what ::she:: stands for.

Either way, this is all bizarre and sexist. Superman has every power in the world but Lois isn’t allowed to be exceptional in one area better than him? She isn’t allowed to be viewed as his equal? Because that brings Superman down somehow? He has every power in the damn world and it’s still a threat to his superiority to let Lois have this ONE thing? K.

[Ascended]

I agree with the sentiment that heroes don't have enough "normal" people around them anymore. Not every supporting cast member has to be a highly trained super ninja or computer expert capable of hacking the Pentagon while they're sitting on the toilet. You need that contrast between the unreal and the real to help keep things stable and in focus.

But Lois f*cking Lane is exceptional, and has been since day 1. And I got no problem with her being the best reporter alive. Someone has to be, right? Like right now, there's a reporter in the world who is the very best at that particular job. Doesn't mean they're also the best forensic scientist, or detective, or they can beat up a bar full of bikers, or anything else, but someone in the world right now is the best investigative reporter alive. I don't know who that is. But in the DCU, that person is Lois Lane. And odds are, most people in the DCU shouldn't know who Lois is any more than I know who the real reporter is. Her reputation does indeed get blown out of proportion at times. But Lois was kicking ass, breaking barriers, and setting examples almost a century ago; she has *always* been exceptional, and the "heroes need more regular people" rule does not apply to her.

That said, I don't need her fighting Female Furies on higher dimensional hell planets. I don't need her piloting Bat-Mechs on the moon, fighting alien super robots. I don't need her leading small armies of super heroes against the legions of a deep state spy organization. But Lois being the best reporter alive? I expect nothing less.

[Jon Clark]

She’s the female lead. Always has been. Always will be. I’m sorry that bothers you so much.

Lead- as in they actually come to see her. Except every example sine the 1970's has been Superman based with lois as part of the deal. Not Lois based. She isn't what is putting butts in the seat. If she were she'd have her own titles, movies, etc without Superman appearing. Best she gets is having her name in the title along with his or a 12-issue mini.

Second, I’m not sure why you are going on and on about what Lois’s success means to who Clark or dating or to Batman. Her success doesn’t have to be measured against them. Her life exists outside of Superman and, believe it or not, the women who love her don’t actually care about her being a great reporter because of how it makes ::Superman:: look because she’s not a possession or accessory only to him. She’s a character with her own agency and goals and fan base and her success as a journalist is about her and what ::she:: stands for.

Because she is a Superman supporting character. She is property the same as every other character in the story. Her only reason for existing is to serve Superman stories. That is the only reason Superman exists too. At the end of the day everything exists in a Superman comic based on how it makes Superman look. Everything exists in a Superman movie because of how it impacts Superman. Otherwise it would be the Adventures of Lois Lane.

[Jcogginsa]

Lois should be significantly more well known than Clark Kent.

[Jon Clark]

Lois should be significantly more well known than Clark Kent.

Now that I can agree with.

I think both of them should (prior to the ID reveal) be regular reporters. Lois should absolutely be the bigger name, but in the sense that she is like the 142nd most impressive journalist and Clark is like the 157th. Her rep is related to being Superman's biographer, though. Not because she isn't a good reporter, but because she and the Daily Planet only got the attention of people outside Metropolis because they cover Superman, not because they are something elite

[Gaius]

Literally no one is arguing that every single supporting character in comics be exceptional. They are arguing that Lois Lane, the first female character in superhero comics who has co-anchored her own TV show in prime time (and is about to do it again) , is exceptional.

I was referring more to the larger trend in comics to make hero's supporting cast exceptional.

While I don't like the trend I've come to agree Lois should be.

[DochaDocha]

I agree with the sentiment that heroes don't have enough "normal" people around them anymore. Not every supporting cast member has to be a highly trained super ninja or computer expert capable of hacking the Pentagon while they're sitting on the toilet. You need that contrast between the unreal and the real to help keep things stable and in focus.

But Lois f*cking Lane is exceptional, and has been since day 1. And I got no problem with her being the best reporter alive. Someone has to be, right? Like right now, there's a reporter in the world who is the very best at that particular job. Doesn't mean they're also the best forensic scientist, or detective, or they can beat up a bar full of bikers, or anything else, but someone in the world right now is the best investigative reporter alive. I don't know who that is. But in the DCU, that person is Lois Lane. And odds are, most people in the DCU shouldn't know who Lois is any more than I know who the real reporter is. Her reputation does indeed get blown out of proportion at times. But Lois was kicking ass, breaking barriers, and setting examples almost a century ago; she has *always* been exceptional, and the "heroes need more regular people" rule does not apply to her.

That said, I don't need her fighting Female Furies on higher dimensional hell planets. I don't need her piloting Bat-Mechs on the moon, fighting alien super robots. I don't need her leading small armies of super heroes against the legions of a deep state spy organization. But Lois being the best reporter alive? I expect nothing less.

Agreed about the non-journalistic points.

As for this thread, I came up with the specific title just to talk about awards, because awards affect the stories in certain ways. As mentioned before, awards aren't the only barometer of aptitude and achievement, and in some cases, the correlation between award and recipient is really low (let me review the list of Nobel Peace Laureates...).

If you're writing a one-off Superman story when he and Lois are in their middle ages, have college-aged kids, etc., then I would absolutely prefer if she's already won. You have one chance at portraying a snapshot into their lives, and someone who's that good should probably have made enough waves that she wouldn't be a nobody in the world of investigative reporters. As others point out, if you keep pumping out hard-hitting stories like that, somebody's going to notice. You can't fly under the radar that long that way.

On the other hand, if you're telling a story with a younger Superman and Lois and both are relatively new to their civilian careers, and you're planning on telling a story arc that will last a few years, I'd rather she not be so accomplished in the first issue/episode. The talent is always there, but the resume is still pretty light. The character still has professional goals yet to be achieved. Another valid take would be she's already accomplished everything there is to, and might even be a bit of a celebrity like some newspaper writers who end up writing books become, but I'd rather just see that happen in actual panels/on screen and see her celebrate the big and little wins with those close to her. I mean, these are actually stories to consume that are interesting. If you skip to her already having won the big awards, I'd say those are missed opportunities for relationship-based episodes.

[Yoda]

One, she is not the female lead of the franchise. She is a supporting character. The same as Jimmy, Perry, Martha, and Lex. That's why she has a 12-issue mini and not an on-going series. It's why no one has made a Lois Lane movie.

This is just wrong. Lois Lane, over the course of the last 40 years has unquestionably become the female lead of the Superman franchise. She's appeared centrally in every adaptation and the comics for the most part, with the notable exception of the New 52 where she was awkwardly shunted aside. She's had her own novel series, has multiple iconic representations in Mass media and is probable the most well know civilian character, with maybe Alfred as a close second. Sorry, but this is just no longer accurate and to say she's of the same stature or improtace as Jimmy, Ma, and Perry is ridiculous. In fact I don't think that's ever been true even going back the full 80 years.

Two my criticism isn't that Lois is a woman who achieves impressive things, it's the increasing need for heroes to surround themselves with only equals. The fact that every person a hero interacts with on a regular basis is either another hero or someone at the very top of their field. Can't have Superman dating the 1,203rd greatest reporter, can we? And, of course, she has to be able to impress Batman with her investigative skills. Plus hey, she can kick the ass of the Eradicator. Why not. Superman couldn't possibly want to date a girl who writes the lovelorn column because no o0ne is letting her get her foot in the door as an actual beat reporter. Heaven forbid she nopt be someone whose very name strikes fear into crooked people's hearts.

This has been addressed by others, but I'll just add that in the context of modern Superman stories her role as being the better reporter plays a more significant narrative purpose than your average character. She doesn't need to be beating up the Furies, but her role as a top notch reporter is a big part of why she works so well with Clark and their dynamic is that of equals in Journalism. I don't understand why that's some sort of issue, particularly with a character like Superman. Although, I'd add in the context of Rebirth and a Lois that's been married to Superman and intimately involved in his world for over a decade, the idea she'd have picked up a few things and would know her way around a mech suit isn't exactly a stretch.

It's kind of the same BS justification they gave at the start of the New 52 by making her "a best friend" they were doing her a favor because they were going to really show how special she was, then promptly ignored her whenever they could and blocked her from being used in stories. It's nonsense justification and kinda speaks to the insecurities of some Superman fans. Just look at how bent out of shape people get when Superman suggests that Kara is equal or better than he is. It's sacrilegious!

[JackDaw]

I don’t think reporting is really the sort of profession where people can be reliably rated from no 1 to low hundreds. That’s only really possible in things like competitive sports.

The question of how fast you can run a 100 metres is objective, and can be measured objectively. For reporting...things like quality of writing style, initiative and bravery in investigating a story are much harder (impossible?) to measure objectively.

So I don’t think it’s remotely important that she’s “worlds best reporter”. But what is important is that she’s widely regarded as one of the best, and achieved that status before meeting Superman.

[Flash Gordon]

Being 'a decorated journalist' really doesn't mean anything.

So I don't think she should be at all. She doesn't need to be some exceptional person who's risen high in our freak establishment- she could just be a good person. I think it'd be better if she's someone who's excellent at her work but never really gets ahead much. I feel the same way about Clark Kent, except I think he should just be a so-so journalist.

[seismic-2]

One, she is not the female lead of the franchise. She is a supporting character. The same as Jimmy, Perry, Martha, and Lex. That's why she has a 12-issue mini and not an on-going series. It's why no one has made a Lois Lane movie.

The Lois Lane comics book ran for 137 issues and 2 annuals, between 1958 and 1974. It was the third-best selling comic book published in 1962. If that's not the mark of a star, what is?

Lois was exceptional from the very inception. When Superman debuted, newspapers were very much a man's business. It was a very tough environment for a woman, and those few who were able to break into journalism were indeed regarded as huge stars in the profession. Lois was one of them.

[Agent Z]

Compared to everything else we see in superhero comics, Lois being a very good reporter doesn't rank very high on the scale of ridiculousness.