The Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh types back then would be Wally George and Morton Downey Jr. They had the exact same schtick. Everything old is new again.
Also Lana became Clark's co-anchor in the late 70's or early 80s. And both Jimmy and Lois were no strangers to TV news. And Clark became so well-known that he filled in on "The Johnny Nevada Show", a take off of "The Tonight Show" in the Johnny Carson era.
Jack Ryder was so controversial and imflamatory that he was suspended and fired on several occassions which led to his security jobs.
You're right -- she was introduced in 1987. But there was another gossip columnist in the '70s, I think already mentioned on this thread, and that's who I was thinking about. Thanks for the save!
Rob Staeger said:You mentioned Cat Grant, Cap, so I have to ask -- did she exist in the era you're examining? I had the impression she was introduced in the Byrne years...
Incidentally, CK, "fun-house mirror version of the Daily Planet" is a great phrase. If you remember what thread that's on from the old board, I'll find it and attribute to you. (Well, I'll attribute to you anyway, but it would be nice to see the context in which you used it, and to be able to footnote it.) Yes, the old board is still there -- the host has inexplicably let it disappear (and not for the first time, which is one of the reasons we moved here) and I haven't gotten around to the three-hours-on-customer-service routine to get it back up. Believe it or not, that's not my highest priority at the moment ... :)
Title: The Daily Bugle
Post by: Doctor Hmmm? on December 08, 2004, 04:32:17 PM Yesterday on another thread, ClarkKent_DC made some very interesting comments re Spider-Man's life as a fun-house mirror reverse image of Superman's life. The following caught my eye: QUOTE(ClarkKent_DC @ Dec 7 2004, 12:58 PM)
Unlike the Daily Planet, the Daily Bugle is a second-rate tabloid.
Is that true?
I was always under the impression that the Bugle, while not The New York Times, was a perfectly respectable newspaper. JJJ may have a burr under his saddle when it comes to Spider-Man, but I never thought of him as Rupert Murdoch. And I wouldn't have thought that Robbie Robertson would be working for a "second-rate tabloid."
If I recall correctly -- and I freely admit that I'm doing this off the top of my head -- when Clark Kent met Peter Parker in Superman vs. The Amazing Spider-Man, Clark knew Petey by reputation as the recipient of some photo-journalism award or other. (Not conclusive of the Bugle's status, of course, but perhaps indicative.)
Am I just out of touch with current continuity?
You know, finding instances of JJJ being unethical are pretty easy (funding Spider-Slayers, front-page editorials, fixing the news to make Spidey look bad, creating the Scorpion, hiring Kraven and Ka-Zar, etc.). Finding instances of JJJ being ethical seems to be my challenge now. I know Marvel has played JJJ both ways, and that "gray area" is part of the concept that I need to illustrate. Anybody remember a time when JJJ was on the RIGHT side of an ethical issue?
Title: The Daily Bugle Post by: ClarkKent_DC on December 10, 2004, 12:41:41 AM Certainly, J. Jonah Jameson is capable of exhibiting great loyalty, and he can have a fierce commitment to exposing wrongdoing, even in the face of punishing costs. This was shown very recently, in the first story arc in The Pulse. A rookie Bugle reporter is murdered, and Jameson rallies the staff to declare that every resource at the paper's command will be devoted to catching the killer. Which is somewhat preposterous, as the good Captain once pointed out here (http://www.captaincomics.us/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=6&top...), but it does show Jameson's strength of character. (But I digress.)
We readers know what Jameson and the Bugle staff, at that point, do not -- that the killer is Norman Osborn, once again gone mad. But we readers learn that Ben Urich once wrote a book detailing Osborn's criminal past, and that Osborn sued for libel -- and won.
Jameson backed Urich all the way through the lawsuit, although they are both embittered by the outcome. They're both 100 percent sure they were right that Osborn is crooked, and they're both 100 percent sure that Jameson did the right thing in backing Urich through the suit. However, Jameson is NOT 100 percent sure he wants to do it again, absent more and better proof. He's maybe 99.5 percent sure, but not 100 percent. By story's end, however, Osborn becomes The Green Goblin in public, and Urich and the paper are vindicated.
Anybody remember a time when JJJ was on the RIGHT side of an ethical issue?