Is Superman an ethical journalist?

[Kevinroc]

Just a question. Clark keeps his identity secret. He doesn't reveal any of the identities that he knows. He doesn't write up anywhere near the stories that he actually knows (different from secret identities and more about the kinds of threats that the DCU tends to face).

Could Clark actually be called an ethical journalist?

[van-zee]

Just a question. Clark keeps his identity secret. He doesn't reveal any of the identities that he knows. He doesn't write up anywhere near the stories that he actually knows (different from secret identities and more about the kinds of threats that the DCU tends to face).

Could Clark actually be called an ethical journalist?

Yes. Reporters don't report everything they are aware of. They report on things that effect the public, not on everything they know. And revealing other heroes secret idents would be like revealing a source.

Now if Clark knew that a publically elected official was, let's say tapping the phones of the general populace, had hard evidence against him, and refused to report it, that might be unethical. But not writing a story about a trip he took to the 1700's with Waverider to prevent Vandel Savage from killing Lois's ancestors is fine. Doesn't really effect the public.

[Lorendiac]

Yes. Reporters don't report everything they are aware of. They report on things that effect the public, not on everything they know. And revealing other heroes secret idents would be like revealing a source.

Now if Clark knew that a publically elected official was, let's say tapping the phones of the general populace, had hard evidence against him, and refused to report it, that might be unethical. But not writing a story about a trip he took to the 1700's with Waverider to prevent Vandel Savage from killing Lois's ancestors is fine. Doesn't really effect the public.

Which raises the question . . . I would have sworn that Superman had positive knowledge of many, many criminal misdeeds which were committed by Lex Luthor prior to the U.S. presidential election of 2000. Not just shaky rumors along the lines of "I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend," but positive personal knowledge of things he had seen Luthor do, heard Luthor boast about doing, and so forth. Why not tell the American people the things that he knew for a fact about Lex Luthor's character? That would be different from saying, "It is my personal best guess that Candidate so-and-so doesn't really mean the things he recently promised to you," as if he were a mind reader.

I agree in principle with the idea that a reporter doesn't and shouldn't publish every interesting thing he knows about anybody. In a book by an old-time journalist, I read a list of guidelines which some other journalist had written down around the early 20th Century. One of them (paraphrased loosely from memory, I'm afraid) went like this:

"When you are present as an ordinary guest at a social gathering, such as a dinner party with several friends and acquaintances, the people seated near you at the table should be able to take it for granted that any silly thing they happen to say as dinner conversation will not be printed in tomorrow's morning paper. Unless they specifically give you permission to quote those exact words for the record. A reporter who does not observe this rule will soon find that very few of his former friends will continue to invite him to their parties."

That was paraphrased from memory, but I think I accurately remembered the general idea of the "rule." And it made a lot of sense to me.

[PatrickG]

I think all of this pretty moot when you consider that Clark has made a career of interviewing himself.

And he employs shapeshifters to impersonate Clark or Superman. And he and his wife knowingly write false stories to cover the secret.

And that time he wore his wedding ring as Superman? The whole JLA lied to cover for him. And he pushed that lie through to print.

Clark Kent, is by necessity, a bad journalist. But he does what he does for what might be considered good reasons.

Ultimately, he can't be a good journalist and be Superman.

But he can USE his job as a journalist to aid his career as Superman and do things that Superman can't.

[Supes35]

I think all of this pretty moot when you consider that Clark has made a career of interviewing himself.

And he employs shapeshifters to impersonate Clark or Superman. And he and his wife knowingly write false stories to cover the secret.

And that time he wore his wedding ring as Superman? The whole JLA lied to cover for him. And he pushed that lie through to print.

Clark Kent, is by necessity, a bad journalist. But he does what he does for what might be considered good reasons.

Ultimately, he can't be a good journalist and be Superman.

But he can USE his job as a journalist to aid his career as Superman and do things that Superman can't.

No, Clark uses his journalism skills to help him in any leads he get, where he can catch the villains as Superman. He's always used his journalism skills in his neverending battle against evil.

But, he's not a bad journalist. Not by any means. He's probably the second best reporter at Daily Planet, with his own wife being the best one there.

Him not exposing his own ID as Superman and not exposing the secret IDs of other superheros does NOT make him a bad journalist at all. It just shows that Clark has a right to privacy, just like anyone else. Clark also respects the privacy of his collegues in the JLA and isn't out to expose them, like that, despite the fact that technically, he's apart of the news media. If Clark were to expose their secret IDs, he would be betraying their trust, and he's not going to do that, because that's not the type of person he is.

I mean, do you think he would betray Batman's trust and reveal that he's really the playboy billionaire, Bruce Wayne? I think not.

Batman could've blown the whistle on Superman a long time ago and told the whole world that Superman is really a Daily Planet news reporter known as Clark Kent. But he didn't, because Batman wouldn't betray Superman's trust like that, just like Superman would never betray Batman's trust.

[Lorendiac]

I think a possible line of argument re: his secret identity goes like this.

"If Clark never writes about Superman at all, then he's being ethical. Because he isn't lying to the public by pretending to have interviewed a man who is actually himself."

"But if Clark publishes a story that clearly is meant to be taken as what he heard from Superman about a recent world-saving adventure, then he's violating journalistic ethics by basically writing about himself, making himself look as good as possible, without admitting to his readers what he is doing, and without admitting that he is probably a biased witness on the subject of his greatness."

Likewise, to come closer to the real world for a moment, I'm pretty sure I've heard that if a journalist writes a book under a pseudonym and doesn't tell anybody, that's fine as far as it goes. But if he then writes a glowing book review of his own book, pretending that he's an objective observer who couldn't possibly have a strong personal reason to make the book sound as good as possible, then that's unethical. (I suppose it might be okay if he wrote the book review, and in it he freely admitted that he was reviewing his own literary masterpiece? :))

[Mean Mr Mustard]

But, he's not a bad journalist. Not by any means. He's probably the second best reporter at Daily Planet, with his own wife being the best one there.


I completely disagree. He has gone against profesional ethic once and again. He's printed what he knows is FALSE INFORMATION time after time. You do realize how serious that is, right? He's used his role as Superman to benefit his career. He's interviewed himself several times for God's sake.

This is something that always bothered me about Clark, so I decide to just not pay much attention to it.
;)

[Adrian Tullberg]

How many former/working journalists have written for Superman?

[van-zee]

He's printed what he knows is FALSE INFORMATION time after time. You do realize how serious that is, right?


Yes. And the penelty is being a field corrospondant for Fox News.

[Ekko]

What false information does he report? He writes news articles, not opinions, meaning all he is doing is reporting the news. I also don't see what's wrong with him interviewing himself, if what he says in an interview to himself would be the same thing he would tell another reporter. Journalists choose not to reveal their sources all the time, and if his source is himself, he has no obligation to reveal that to anyone.

[phantom1592]

Which raises the question . . . I would have sworn that Superman had positive knowledge of many, many criminal misdeeds which were committed by Lex Luthor prior to the U.S. presidential election of 2000. Not just shaky rumors along the lines of "I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend," but positive personal knowledge of things he had seen Luthor do, heard Luthor boast about doing, and so forth. Why not tell the American people the things that he knew for a fact about Lex Luthor's character? That would be different from saying, "It is my personal best guess that Candidate so-and-so doesn't really mean the things he recently promised to you," as if he were a mind reader.



The thing about lex is that there was never any PROOF. It was always his word against Superman. I don't remember the stroy too well, but I seem to recall that he was trusting the public to vote against Lex. See through him for what he was without voicing his own opinion.

If someone makes accusations against a canadite without proof, it just looks like a smear campaign. Even if it's superman. I think he was trying to avoid helping by making him the poor human being lied about by all the superhuman demi-gods and ALiens. Make him look more like a man of the people.







Granted it didn't work :o

[Doom]

It's a difficult thing to say without reading any of the articles that Clark Kent has published. (Since useually we don't actually see any of Clark's articles.)

That being said, Clark will often publish a story about Superman and not reveal the full facts, or stop the story. (IE the Justice League all suddenlly having Rings to cover up Superman being married.) That would be seen as him having an agenda.

This website gives some sample Ethical laws for American Journalists (they vary from paper to paper.)

http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

I think Clark is breaking the one on "Conflict of Interests."

[Supes35]

I completely disagree. He has gone against profesional ethic once and again. He's printed what he knows is FALSE INFORMATION time after time. You do realize how serious that is, right? He's used his role as Superman to benefit his career. He's interviewed himself several times for God's sake.

This is something that always bothered me about Clark, so I decide to just not pay much attention to it.
;)


Why does that make him a bad journalist? Oh I forgot, it doesn't.

Clark is a reporter, so he's obligated to report the news. He has to write articles about Superman, since Superman is definatley news worthy.

He'll write articles about himself, but he doesn't reveal everything. Why should he? Clark is entitled to his own privacy and he's not obligated to reveal everything about himself as Superman, where he lived, etc. If he revealed everything, than the consequences would be dire. What I mean dire, is dire for the people he cares about, meaning his foster parents, his friends, and especially his wife. If people figured out that Clark is Superman, than nothing good would come out of it. Why should he put the people he cares about in danger?

Besides, he has to write about Superman, regardless. As a journalist, he has to. If he didn't, than more people would start to become suspicious, which wouldn't be a good thing. He doesn't have to go into specifics, and he doesn't. He'll write a general story and that's it. It has nothing to do with his opinion or anything.

What he does is not unethical at all. Not by any means.

Oh and BTW, journalists don't always write what they know, because doing that could possibly endanger the lives of other people, among other things. They aren't just going to put others in danger just to further their own ambition.

[Supes35]

The thing about lex is that there was never any PROOF. It was always his word against Superman. I don't remember the stroy too well, but I seem to recall that he was trusting the public to vote against Lex. See through him for what he was without voicing his own opinion.

If someone makes accusations against a canadite without proof, it just looks like a smear campaign. Even if it's superman. I think he was trying to avoid helping by making him the poor human being lied about by all the superhuman demi-gods and ALiens. Make him look more like a man of the people.







Granted it didn't work :o

Exactly.

Clark has always been careful not to let politics or personal agendsa get in the way of what he does.

I think some people are trying to make something into a negative, when its not.

i think it comes from people viewing Superman as perfect, so they are despirate to find anything, even something trival, to prove that he's unethical or is less of a hero, when he's not.