...can he continue to report on his own activities as Superman? Doesn't the need for journalistic impartiality mean that the Planet has to assign a different reporter to cover Superman? Isn't the impartiality of every "Superman" story that "Clark" wrote in the past now called into question?
I fell like the Planet's critics will be divided into two camps:
- The ones who will say, "The Planet must be staffed with idiots if they didn't know that Superman was working there."
and - The ones who will say, "The Planet staff must think we're idiots if they expect us to believe that they didn't know that Superman was working there.
Replies
Going forward, the only ethical course Clark Kent can follow is to write first-person stories about Superman's actions.
As for the past, that's a minefield.
Yeah, the Planet would -- and should -- have other reporter(s) cover Superman, but his being part of the staff still working for the paper is a problem there, too.
Not to mention that Lois', Jimmy's and Perry's journalistic integrity as well as most of The Daily Planet's staff have been compromised, to say the least. I could see mass firings over this!
I haven't read Superman for a few years, but I kind of want to know why an "out" Superman/Kent would bother continuing with his reporter job.
As for the integrity issue, they're going to have to work it out. I mean, now that it has happened, it will be a part of the stories forever, as there's no precedent for a comic book company just overriding past continuity. It's a good thing that DC has their own past handling of real-life ethical issues to guide them!
Well, this is what he said:
JD DeLuzio said:
Clark Kent might be able to continue as a journalist but with everyone knowing who he is, is that an unfair advantage? A reporter with x-ray vision and super-hearing? Who can tell when someone is lying? Even if he stays away from any story involving super-heroes, villains and such. could he really investigate anyone impartially? Because if Superman thinks you're doing something wrong, how can you NOT be guilty?
I think Clark Kent could only function as a reporter as a freelancer who writes books, not someone cranking out daily stories. But Philip raises an excellent point; knowing he's Superman, who would talk to him and answer his questions?
I must assume that it would severely limit the sort of subjects that he may write about.
Politicians would stop speaking to him pretty fast. Or maybe they would be pressured into resuming speaking to him?
He would however be in high demand for technical subject matters. No reason why he could not cover, say, Covid-19 situations and even give personal testimonies about he effectiveness of sanitary measures and proposed treatments. He would sort of be his own forensic team.
Other similar reduced conflict situations exist. Coverage of natural disasters, military conflicts, rescue missions. He would be just perfect to cover situations such as the rescue of the Wild Boards from the Thai cave back in 2018, were it not for the fact that he would be ethically bound to effect the rescue himself.
But yes, there are some special ethical demands that he must comply with if he wants to keep working as a licensed reporter.
Luis Olavo de Moura Dantas said:
"Licensed" reporter? There's no such thing, at least not here in the U.S. We're constitutionally against such things as licenses for reporters.
I stand corrected.
Still, his credibility will be at question.