Journalism and "Superman: Earth One"

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

This review from the Seattle Times by Andrew Smith on JMS's Superman: Earth One perfectly captures my problems with the portrayal of journalism in the New York Times bestselling graphic novel.

First, I can accept, for example, that Clark Kent lies to his editor and his reading public about his secret identity. Even though that violates no less than six tenets of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, the lie prevents a greater evil — the murder of all of Kent's family, friends and associates.


But what I can't accept is Kent using this facade for professional gain. My primary beef is those stories that depict Kent scooping Lois Lane with the first interview with Superman, which lands him his job at the Daily Planet. That isn't a white lie necessary to save lives; it's fraudulent self-promotion of the worst kind.


Thankfully, the 1986 version of Superman began to realize how unethical this was, and a 2009 miniseries retelling the Man of Steel's early years dispensed with it altogether — Kent got his job the old-fashioned way: by coming up with a big story without using his superpowers, a story that had nothing to do with Superman. Huzzah!


However, "Superman: Earth One" restores this ethical breach, with Kent playing the Superman card to get a job. Gah! Once again, Kent is no better than Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke or Jayson Blair.

It was a problem I had with John Byrne's version as well. In The Adventures of Superman, Clark interviewed the person he rescued when he scooped Lois out of the story of Superman's first appearance and didn't fabricate his quotes.

As a newspaperman and Society of Professional Journalist member, I am appalled and disappointed by Strazcynski's approach to journalism here, especially since he was once a journalist himself and wrote for my alma mater paper, The Daily Aztec, which he has proudly referred to as "The Daily Joe."

And I have to agree with Smith, the articles in the back hardly read like newspaper stories. They read like stories you'd find in People magazine.

Finally, Kent and Lane's first stories about Superman are included in the back of the book. But they are so embarrassingly juvenile and unreadable that they wouldn't pass as decent blog posts, much less professional news stories. Worse, Kent writes a dialogue exchange between himself and Superman — one that is not only unethical (he's making it up!) but is so cringingly adolescent and amateurish that no newspaper on any Earth would run it.

Kent's exclusive ("S is for...") has no hard news bent, inserts "himself" into the interview and really isn't worthy of an above-the-fold (or play) story.

On the other hand, it's similar to Lois's "I spent the night with Superman" front page story. But, at least, Superman let Lois interview rather than interviewing himself.

Straczynski has criticized other Superman writers for not making the Daily Planet not seem like real newsroom, but neither does he.

Mark Waid did a better job in Birthright. Kent, at least, was able to put Luthor in jail by getting documentation and a quotable source for his story.

Journalism in Superman has been hit or miss. An example of miss — no one takes notes in Lois and Clark or in Smallville. Moreover, the latter has Lois being highly unethical to get her stories, such as posing as an S&M dominatrix to entrap Godfrey.

An example of hit — Clark was a helluv a crime reporter in the first season of The Adventures of Superman. Lois took notes all the time in Superman: The Animated Series.

Nevertheless, Strazcynksi, whose Babylon 5 I enjoyed, promised a real newsroom and real journalism in "Earth One." He failed to delivery, and gave us something far worse than previous incarnations of the character.

To be honest, I really want to like this book, but I can't. I simply can't.

 

[JoeZhang]

It worse than that, there is a bit in the newspaper interview where he says:

He looks out the window. It's getting dark. "I should head out, there's still a lot of work to be done clearing the streets and digging people out from under the mess".

So either Clark left people to die in the rubble while he conducted an interview with himself or he simply made it up later but with the same impact, to make Superman look like an asshole who'd stop to give a newspaper interview rather than helping people.

 

[Snaploud]

Journalism in Superman has been hit or miss. An example of miss — no one takes notes in Lois and Clark \

Interesting you mention Lois and Clark... It was the first Superman origin story that I thought about when you mentioned Clark getting on the Daily Planet staff through skill. In the pilot, he proved himself by going out and getting a story and writing up that story in way that would get Perry White's attention.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Yeah I liked that about "Lois and Clark". It's funny that the columnist would have such a beef about this because the depiction of the Daily Planet building and the reporters themselves was something that Joe had been eager and enthusiastic about this aspect of the story. In fact in several early interviews Joe seemed rather braggish about his portrayal of the Planet and dismissed other depictions as being inaccurate.

 

[Myasishchev]

It worse than that, there is a bit in the newspaper interview where he says:

He looks out the window. It's getting dark. "I should head out, there's still a lot of work to be done clearing the streets and digging people out from under the mess".

So either Clark left people to die in the rubble while he conducted an interview with himself or he simply made it up later but with the same impact, to make Superman look like an asshole who'd stop to give a newspaper interview rather than helping people.

Ha, yeah, that was my favorite part. Nothing I've heard or seen about S:E1 made me want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Also I am made to understand that Jimmy Olsen is a retard who does not know how to operate a telephoto lens.

However, going to the review, and maybe Mr. Smith just misspoke, why would it be unethical for Clark to use his superpowers in his journalistic endeavors? Making up interviews is obviously wrong, but what's wrong with using super-hearing or X-ray vision to investigate stories, or something as simple as super-speed to obviate the need for a cab ride (why, that's just thinking green)?

 

[Christopher]

However, going to the review, and maybe Mr. Smith just misspoke, why would it be unethical for Clark to use his superpowers in his journalistic endeavors?

I can't find any such statement in the review. What he's saying is that it's unethical for Clark to exploit his powers for personal gain. If he keeps his identity secret to protect the innocent, that's one thing. But if he lies about how he got a story (or worse, makes up a story altogether) in order to get a job or show up Lois, then that's an ethical violation with no valid justification.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I exploit my powers for personal gain every day.

Sadly, they're limited to meeting the occasional deadline and serving as a sufficient source of amusement to my c/e/l/l/m/a/t/e/s/ coworkers that they're thus far unwilling to push me out a window to watch me try to fly.

 

[Christopher]

Yes, but if you lie for personal gain, that's an ethical violation. The writer wasn't complaining about Clark using his powers, but about Clark authoring a fradulent newspaper article (i.e. "I, Clark Kent, interviewed Superman") in order to advance his career. The problem is that he used his identity as Superman to get himself a job under false pretenses and undermine another reporter in the process.

 

[Cicero]

Originally, Superman's job at the Daily Planet wasn't for personal gain. He didn't need money, he needed access to information so that he could help people quickly.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Clark in "Smallville" started out as a copyboy and worked his way up. According to Smallville wiki his first assignment was writing an obituary. Incidentally this was also a returning Clark Kent's first assignment back in "Superman Returns". I could understand a reporter being upset at inaccurate portrayals of their job but Clark and Lois's job at the Planet has been a long established fact within the Superman mythos and how Clark got his job there has been retold at least half a dozen times. It's not really a big deal I don't think.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Journalism in Superman has been hit or miss. An example of miss — no one takes notes in Lois and Clark \

Interesting you mention Lois and Clark... It was the first Superman origin story that I thought about when you mentioned Clark getting on the Daily Planet staff through skill. In the pilot, he proved himself by going out and getting a story and writing up that story in way that would get Perry White's attention.

Oh, I loved Lois and Clark, especially in its first season. I thought there was some attempt to have them act as investigative reporters, such as Lois getting her hands on documents in the pilot episode about the shuttle launch.

Although Clark's story was heartwarming, I don't think it would've been the kind of hard news story that would win over Perry White. Maybe the features editor, but not the editor-in-chief.

But I'd always liked to think Perry was a soft-touch underneath all that gruff and cigar smoke. Much like my own editor.

I could understand a reporter being upset at inaccurate portrayals of their job but Clark and Lois's job at the Planet has been a long established fact within the Superman mythos and how Clark got his job there has been retold at least half a dozen times. It's not really a big deal I don't think.

I can accept the fact that journalism is often skewed for the sake of drama and putting Lois in danger.

However, Strazcynski, as you pointed out upthread, bragged about his accurate portrayal of newspapers in Earth One. Yet, he had Clark be highly unethical to get his job, wrote articles that read like bad fan-fic and not real news stories, and had Jimmy act like a self-centered sophist rather than a photographer.

But I would like to see the journalism in Superman played a bit more naturalistic, as I think it would allow for more dramatic storytelling in some cases. Hell, I'd love it if they returned to having Clark investigate crimes and other stories, as he once did. As I've said in the past, Clark can go places where Superman can't. Clark can get underneath a story and when he can only go so far, then he changes to Superman, like in the old newspaper daily strips and The Adventures of Superman.

 

[Christopher]

However, Strazcynski, as you pointed out upthread, bragged about his accurate portrayal of newspapers in Earth One. Yet, he had Clark be highly unethical to get his job, wrote articles that read like bad fan-fic and not real news stories, and had Jimmy act like a self-centered sophist rather than a photographer.

What gets me is the thing about getting active vs. passive voice wrong. How can a writer as experienced as JMS fail to understand something so basic to the craft of writing?

 

[the G-man]

I'd love it if they returned to use Clark to investigate crimes and other things as they used to. As I've said in the past, Clark can go places where Superman can't. Clark can get underneath a story and when he can only go so far, then he changes to Superman, like in the old newspaper daily strips and The Adventures of Superman.

Sadly, over the past twenty years DC has reduced Clark Kent to little more than a pair of glasses that Superman wears during exposition scenes with Lois.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I remember the old Fliesher cartoons, Clark would often times scoop Lois. It was kind of a running joke. "How did you get the story before me Clark, you showed up late?" That type of thing. Clark would reply," Oh Lois, I have my sources." , I never saw it as him bieng an asshole or anything.

 

[Myasishchev]

However, going to the review, and maybe Mr. Smith just misspoke, why would it be unethical for Clark to use his superpowers in his journalistic endeavors?

I can't find any such statement in the review. What he's saying is that it's unethical for Clark to exploit his powers for personal gain. If he keeps his identity secret to protect the innocent, that's one thing. But if he lies about how he got a story (or worse, makes up a story altogether) in order to get a job or show up Lois, then that's an ethical violation with no valid justification.

old fashioned way: by coming up with a big story without using his superpowers

Definite negative impression of using one's "powers" to get stories. But, yeah, he didn't say it was unethical--but did imply it was lesser in some undefined fashion.

I think it'd be neat if Clark did a investigative piece on Armaghetto. I'd like to see old-fashioned journalism get those interviews.

Originally, Superman's job at the Daily Planet wasn't for personal gain. He didn't need money, he needed access to information so that he could help people quickly.

Originally, Superman beat up landlords and Washington lobbyists. It was great. Then there was that time Superman heat-visioned Nick Naylor's left lung out just to prove a point. Okay, I made up the last part, but an Action Comics/Thank You For Smoking crossover would be sweet.

 

[Christopher]

I remember the old Fliesher cartoons, Clark would often times scoop Lois. It was kind of a running joke. "How did you get the story before me Clark, you showed up late?" That type of thing. Clark would reply," Oh Lois, I have my sources." , I never saw it as him bieng an asshole or anything.

But that's just scooping. It's not the same thing as actually falsifying the content of an article by, for instance, claiming that Clark Kent interviewed Superman and describing events that never happened. Clark reporting, "Superman prevented the fiery meteor from smashing into the city" is not the same as Clark reporting, "Superman sat down with me for lunch and we had the following conversation." The former is simply omission; he accurately, truthfully describes what Superman did and simply neglects to mention that he is Superman. (One could argue that referring to Superman in the third person is deception, but no more so than using the editorial "we" to express a single columnist's viewpoint, which was a journalistic standard for a long time.) But in the latter case, he's creating a fictional account and presenting it to his editor and readers as fact. That's lying outright, and it's a serious breach of journalistic ethics, especially if he does it to secure a job rather than to protect the innocent.

However, going to the review, and maybe Mr. Smith just misspoke, why would it be unethical for Clark to use his superpowers in his journalistic endeavors?

I can't find any such statement in the review. What he's saying is that it's unethical for Clark to exploit his powers for personal gain. If he keeps his identity secret to protect the innocent, that's one thing. But if he lies about how he got a story (or worse, makes up a story altogether) in order to get a job or show up Lois, then that's an ethical violation with no valid justification.

old fashioned way: by coming up with a big story without using his superpowers

Definite negative impression of using one's "powers" to get stories. But, yeah, he didn't say it was unethical--but did imply it was lesser in some undefined fashion.

But that sentence has to be considered in the context of the earlier paragraphs where the commentator defined the problem. There, it was made clear that the problem was Superman using his superheroic identity to secure employment under false pretenses. So referring to "superpowers" later in the article is a shorthand for that, perhaps a poorly chosen one.

 

[Kegg]

You know one thing I liked about Superman Returns is that Clark Kent was given the job of reporting a seemingly unimportant story that turns out to be something of some relevance as it's part of the bad guy's scheme.. while everyone else was working on the Superman story. I really think it works better if Lois is the one reporting Superman stories and Clark Kent would be reporting things which don't overlap with his spandex costuming... if not just for journalistic ethics, but that always getting the scoop raises flags about his thinly veiled true identity.

In fact in several early interviews Joe seemed rather braggish about his portrayal of the Planet and dismissed other depictions as being inaccurate.

That's just JMS being JMS.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Clark authoring a fradulent newspaper article (i.e. "I, Clark Kent, interviewed Superman")

So, he didn't interview himself? The things that he claims he said are things that he didn't say to himself?

Seems to me that Clark has extraordinary access to Superman's thoughts. What he doesn't have, obviously, is any detachment.

I sit down to lunch with myself every day...unless I skip lunch. Sometimes, I talk to myself.

 

[Myasishchev]

You know one thing I liked about Superman Returns is that Clark Kent was given the job of reporting a seemingly unimportant story that turns out to be something of some relevance as it's part of the bad guy's scheme.. while everyone else was working on the Superman story. I really think it works better if Lois is the one reporting Superman stories and Clark Kent would be reporting things which don't overlap with his spandex costuming... if not just for journalistic ethics, but that always getting the scoop raises flags about his thinly veiled true identity.

Parker, how ever do you keep getting these great shots?

 

[Christopher]

So, he didn't interview himself? The things that he claims he said are things that he didn't say to himself?

Seems to me that Clark has extraordinary access to Superman's thoughts. What he doesn't have, obviously, is any detachment.

My understanding is that the actual wording of the "article" in Earth One includes specific details that could not be included in an accurate report of a single person's internal monologue. In essence, so I gather, Clark inserted himself into the report -- something that's journalistically questionable in and of itself -- as a figure in the narrative alongside Superman. The only way that isn't deliberate journalistic fraud is if he's delusional and actually believes he's two people, which is a whole lot scarier.