Superman Through the Ages! Forum

It has always seemed to me that Clark's position as a reporter reporting on Superman is pretty dubious ethically. Most obviously he is misleading and even lying in his stories with his premise that Clark and Supes are different guys. Another issue is that his powers and position as Superman really give him an unfair advantage as a reporter. If it was unethical for super-strong, super-fast Clark to compete in football, how is Superman using telescopic and x-ray vision and super-hearing to investigate a story any different. One thing I like about post-Crisis Clark is that he is a good reporter and writer; he has won awards and sold novels. Pre-Crisis Clark we never knew much about his professional skills or lack thereof (By the way, does Clark have a college degree? what was his major/minor? Does he just have a BA or did he go for a Master's too? I would think to get a job at a prestigious paper like the Planet he'd have to have a pretty solid background in journalism, even some previous experience on at least a college paper). Any thoughts?

I'm not sure I understand how you can reconcile your concerns about Clark's ethics (which I share) with an appreciation for his post-Crisis fame and awards.  It would seem to me that accepting awards for journalistic feats achieved through superhuman means (and reported, as you say, with less than total candor) would only make him less ethical.  It's "cheating" as surely as if he used his superpowers to win at sports (which, come to think of it, is another indefensibly unethical thing he does post-Crisis).

It was always a bit bothersome to me that Clark used his abilities to beat out Lois (and countless other nameless reporters in Metropolis) to get good stories.  Now, being in a newsroom makes perfect sense for a guy who wants to know about crises quickly and respond to them (although it became less important as Superman's powers increased to the point where he could monitor everything happening on Earth while lying in a hammock at the beach), but the flip side is that Clark benefits, rather unfairly, from being on the scene of every interesting event, everywhere.  That is to say, I don't mind Superman using Clark as a way to learn about trouble, but I do mind Clark using Superman as a tool to report things no one else can. 

Just to make things even more dubious, as you suggest, Clark ends up withholding all sorts of information when he finally files his stories.  First off, he obviously doesn't mention how Superman was alerted to a danger or where he came from to get there.  Then we can assume he leaves out other details that would (1) reveal his identity, (2) give future evildoers ideas for crimes or ways to hurt him, (3) confuse readers with super-scientific explanations of super-feats, (4) cause panic or alarm about ongoing or upcoming threats.  Clark censors his own stories to the point where they're pretty bare bones, I'd imagine.  Also any quotes he attributes to Superman from "interviews" are iffy at best. Yes, he could argue it's what he WOULD have said if asked, but he's really edging over into the realm of "fabrication" by suggesting a face-to-face that never happened.

In the pre-Crisis era, this sort of thing was occasionally worrisome, but generally you could ignore it.  Superman needed his job at the Planet as a launching point for adventures, and when the adventure was over of course he had to file a story, since that's what he was sent to do at the start of the book.  But post-Crisis it become very hard to ignore the question of ethics as Clark rises to prominence and celebrity from his stories.  The only good thing to come out of that, perhaps, was making him a columnist, which would have freed up his time and made it less necessary for him to punch a time-clock and be at-the-ready whenever Perry had a job to hand out.  Because what's never worked in any era was the idea of a guy disappearing from the office for long periods and not getting fired.

I don't necessarily have a problem with Clark being recognized for his novels, though.  I look at novels as more a case of personal expression and creativity, things that come from within and aren't produced on a competitive, "I got here first" basis.  it makes sense that with his unique experiences, his sensitive soul and his compassion for humanity that Clark would be a great writer of fiction.

On the other hand, if he's writing SF novels about alien civilizations he claims to have "imagined," when actually he's just basing them on real alien cultures he actually visited, well that's still cheating.  :P

I don't neccessarily think they are reconcilable. I like the idea that Clark can be a successful writer, yet i don't like that he could benefit unfairly as a reporter. I like the idea of Clark writing novels because his skills and imagination as a writer of fiction would be one of those few areas in which a Kryptonian can compete fairly with mere humans. Let's face it though, the planet must have pretty dubious standards of journalistic ethics anyway. I mean they let Lois, who is well known to have a personal involvement with Superman, and Jimmy (Superman's pal) cover Superman stories. Even Clark is publicly a close friend of Superman. Let's also not forget those times when even Perry has joined in on Super-hoaxes to catch criminals! Could or would the Planet allow a story or editorial that was critical of Superman?

What's the motivation for him to write?  Well, he has something he wants to say.  And, under the category of reporter, he could "say" almost anything.  If he just wanted to discover new stuff, he could be a scientist or detective and live in a cave.  If he just wanted to be aware of wrongs to right, he could have been a police officer, before his super-senses got juiced to the point where he could see and hear cells divide.  This is a guy who scratches Kryptonese in metal diaries with his fingernail. 

Where?  The Daily Planet, a great metropolitan newspaper, a center of the universe for worldwide communications.  And maybe he blogs on the side, when he isn't fighting off offers from intergalactic newspapers to go write for them.  (His Pulitzer caught the attention of the Alpha Centauri Gazette.)

When?  Unlike traditional authors who take awhile to get into print, a reporter can say what they want to say pretty quickly.  "Instant" gratification is important for someone who works at light speed.

How does he want to say it?  Sure, he could say it as Superman.  But then it's not sold on the strength of the ideas, but simply because Superman said it.  Perhaps Superman doesn't want to sway the course of mighty elections against presidential candidate Luthor or recommend a particular type of toothpaste (because even diving into the sun doesn't make your breath minty fresh), yet may have a thing or two to say.  Clark can say it. 

Why does he want to say it?  Perhaps he wants to leave a super-legacy.  Legionnaires a thousand years from now will read Superman's writings as Clark Kent like sacred scriptures (or ironic testiments :) ).  Perhaps his super-senses overload him and he needs to vent descriptive prose just to get the Cthulhu out of his system.  Maybe writing is a way for him to maintain a little emotional distance. 

Where do ethics fit?  What's the ethic of him taking a salary, when he can squeeze himself enough loot to live independently and not take a job from someone else?  Perhaps he's conscious of the fact that there's a greater good he serves by doing what he does. 

This line of inquiry brings to mind the discussion of Superman's illegal vigilantism we had here awhile ago: if looked at very closely, most of Superman's and Clark's actions are illegal, if not unethical.  In terms of journalistic ethics, the reporter is not bound to report on how he got the story necessarily, but he should comment if he played an active role.  In this sense, because Clark's career and identity is predicated on one big lie (that he and Superman are physically separate beings), most of his reporting is unethical.  Sometimes it is a thin line --but only semantically.

 

Can Michael Moore reasonably operate a journalist if he's the one off making the news he reports to no small degree?  Unlike Michael Moore, Clark is trying to hide his involvement with the newsmaking entity. 

Does Peter Parker lack photojournalistic ethics?  They've had lots of fun with that premise in Marvel over the years.
 

A good point.  Here's something, though:  What if we take the late 70s/early 80s approach that Kal-El conceives of Clark Kent and Superman as two separate people.  Something along the lines of Clark being a "construct" on Superman's part.  Superman has a Super-Brain and has created this elaborate personality named Clark Kent, which has taken on a life of his own.  Superman loves Clark, much the way a parent would love a child.  Superman gives Clark room in which to be his own entity and to have his own career.

So Clark may not have had a big role in the story - but Superman did.  Clark makes certain that everything the public would have known were it present is reported and violates no confidences in the process.  I think that qualifies as ethical.

Yes, in essence he fools himself into thinking he's acting ethically because of this pseudo-schizoid situation.  A variation of a semantic word game, played with personalities.  Possibly even legally defensible.

I would love to read a story where Clark becomes aware of information using his superpowers (ie, vision, hearing) and is challenged to reveal his sources in court but cannot do so without revealing his identity.  And so to jail.  Even if it was resolved using Superman robots, super-ventriloquism, or something equally lame, still an interesting exploration of that aspect of the mythos.



 

I was thinking of a court of law as well.  I can't recall a time, but I assume that evidence gathered by Superman using his abilities is accepted by prosecuting attorneys.  And I wonder if Clark would ever volunteer to testify as Clark.

On the sheer matter of journalistic integrity, Clark is clearly flouting the rules, because he is failing to declare his role in the story as an interested party. Journalists often become part of the story - think of Alan Johnston, the BBC reporter who spent four months as a hostage: he becomes part of the story, but he can still report about it since his part is a matter of recorded fact. There's the rather more curious incident I heard of recently, in which a newscaster in Florida reported the break-up of a mayor's marriage without revealing that she was the "other woman": she did report the facts objectively as they appeared, but failed to disclose the whole truth, and that's what journalism is all about (or should be).

On a moral level, though, you can't really fault Clark. Besides the fact that he's a straight-laced sort of chap who probably takes great pains to get the facts right and not embellish on his superfeats, there's also the matter that as Superman, he can't really espouse partisan causes - Superman isn't even a legal person who can vote or pay taxes. Clark is Superman's secret spokesperson in a way, the only right of expression he has. Sort of like being a civil servant and keeping a political blog, I suppose.

Why not?  Especially with Pre-Crisis Superman, the President of the United States (and indeed, of every country) would be whoever Superman might recommend.  "I trust this President to not waste taxpayer dollars creating more missiles that I'll have to throw into the sun sooner or later." 

Well, yeah, but it never works like that in the comics. Superman's probably got some idea that he must not meddle in human history, or that his endorsement would be unfair to the other candidates or something. He's such a wet blanket sometimes.

You don't have to go to modern real-world examples to find reporters "making" or participating in the news: most Daily Planet and WGBS employees have taken a hand in tracking down crooks, finding lost treasures, battling supervillains, and generating content by disguising themselves or doing charity work.

As for Clark's political opinions, it would be very interesting to read an ethicist's take on the various hairs he splits on a daily basis juggling to identities.

My point is that he can, but he doesn't and won't get political as Superman, even when it's to his detriment (e.g. "President Luthor").  Some of his reasons may not fall into the "wet blanket" category.  He may care about the strength of ideas and ideals over cults of personality.  He may have had a bad experience endorsing the wrong candidate for mayor as Superboy.  He may have inherited a deep-seated disdain for politicians from seeing how they interact with farmers. 

Or it may also be partially influenced by his father's experience with the obstinate members of the Science Council as well. The portrayal of the council has ranged from stubborn to fascistic (as seen in Action annual 10).

Hey, Mxy and Amazo, you make some pretty good points: Superman might not have much reason to trust politicians (I actually like the current portrayal of Jor-El as a dissident, it's pretty nifty); perhaps his experience with politics has made him a kind of closet anarchist, though he outwardly displays a deep respect for authority.

Hmm...

Recall a 70's Adventure Comics story where Superboy sees his arm (thanks to a villain) has become intangible, and notes his arm's "got as much weight to it as a politician's promise!"

There's also the final (unfinished) storyline in the 80s Superboy title where Pa Kent runs for Smallville's city council to prevent someone from building a shopping mall in Smallville, which would ruin the various local businesses including the Kent general store; Pa wond up dealing with various shady city council members who had some scheme behind wanting the mall approved for being built...

The Golden Age Superman was probably the most political version of the character. He distrusted politicians, businessmen, and felt an affinity towards the working class. Given the decade Superman was created in, this isn't surprising.

I can't believe that we're using "journalism" and "ethics" in the same sentence without "lack thereof..."  To this I speak of journalism in general.  Onto our hero...

But, there are instances where we see Clark become a hero as a journalist - particularly his Intergang expose-type pieces.  I think more recently, this is being taken into account - and establishing Clark as more a journalist/reporter type than not.

Overall, I don't particularly see the difficulty in Clark's vocation.  If one wants to learn about the "human experience" I suppose being in print media might be as good a field as any.  However, seeing Clark get personally involved in his stories like a bit of a Guardian Angel are always my more favorite stories. 

I would think that Clark would desire to play his role as more a mediocre reporter than anything, but his personal interest in Lois would keep him doing just enough to stay in the game and just pass by to remain on staff.

Yup - the Golden Age Supes was very involved in righting the wrongs wrought on the working class - understandably.  It's always funny to hear Superman referred to as a boy scout.  At his inception, he was just as capable of throwing a crook over the Empire State building playing volley ball with himself as he was just letting them freak cause their knife broke on his skin.

Jor-El the dissident.  That's funny too, - I've always seen him as a dissident.  It'd have to take someone who was definitely bucking the status quo to send one's baby son into outer space.

I think Alan Moore ripped off this plot in Big Numbers...

It's such a meta idea: the 80s Superboy was all about fighting a rear-guard action against modernism and people who hated the very idea of Superboy.  In a way, fighting shopping malls is like continuing to publish a 50s-style Superboy comic.