This Lois must not be a very good investigative journalist...

[Supsfan]

where did I do this in my comments?

I am speaking more in general then at one specific person. When people make issues about characters(in a negative light) more then bad writing though it comes accross as negative spin to me.

[bigblueplanet]

All she knew was that she was having dreams about things that clearly did not happen: Chloe was not dead, the sun was not red, there were no solar towers in the middle of Metropolis, etc. To Lois, everything in her dreams were just dreams and not a reflection of her current reality.

This is what you said when we were discussing about the solar towers in Disciple.

She said, "This one tower will generate enough clean energy to power all of Metropolis." So what I've been wondering was whether it's not so much entirely new buildings that LuthorCorp/RAO were planning on building, but adding a tower onto existing buildings that would allow those towers that once relied on other energy sources to be "self-sustaining."

Because of the unbelievably rapid construction, it makes you wonder if the towers have been already existed in the Metropolis back then. So now you think it didn’t exist in the Idol timeline? Which scene/show canon/dialogue had changed your mind?

For me, this is about “viewer’s expectations”. You have been kind enough to read my long-winded reviews each week and shared your thoughts in response to them. If you look back, you can see that I was giving the show the benefit of the doubt and has been willing to take a “wait and see first” stance.

When the show sets up a “thread”, it naturally makes me look forward to seeing it unfold. Now we have one thread which involves the connection between Amanda Waller and Lois. Waller supposedly knows that Lois is a great journalist according to Durance – I said that because we don’t really know how Waller thinks that a reporter who is still working at the basement is the best one out there. (And if Lois is, why she hasn’t been promoted yet? Her editor wouldn’t agree with the assessment? Or does Tess somehow stand in the way of her promotion? Or is it because the show can’t afford another set?) So this is the one of the threads I’m definitely looking forward to, right now.

There were other threads (past tense & plural) I was waiting to see how they pan out. One is when The-Blur-Clark decided to go back to the planet being Clark. He made sure that the one of the primary reasons he chose to do so is because of Lois’s future memory, according to the conversation he exchanged with Chloe at the end of Metallo and his deal-making sentence seems to be what Chloe said; “We can't let her get to Lois's memories before you do."

Did we get to see how Clark or Chloe – the two closest people to Lois – try to figure out about those memories? None. But they both let Tess get to them before they do.


Now, I don’t want to open a can of worms so I won’t talk about the solar towers but that’s just another example of setting up the thread and -------------no narrative in between (on screen anyway) ------------- then WHAM!!! Straight to the execution of the story thread. This is a typical pattern in this show (imo) and how those expectations set myself up for disappointment. I really wish we get to see “------------- “ part instead of filling it up by ourselves.

I'm really not understanding the clues you're talking about in Idol. The Lois in Pandora never experienced what the Lois in Idol experienced. Furthermore, the Lois in Idol never recovered her full memories of what happened in Pandora so she didn't have the clues from that timeline either. As soon as her memories did come flooding back to her at the end of Idol, they were erased. At no point did Lois possess both sets of clues in order to make the connection you believe she should have made.

Supsfan already pointed me out and I also see the flaw in my argument. I was talking from my (as a viewer) perspective instead of Lois’s POV. Sorry to confuse you.

If you recall, Jimmy witnessed Clark healing quickly in Stiletto, but it wasn't until he literally saw Clark's face heal in front of him that he made the connection. I'll tell you what, if Lois witnesses Clark instantly recover from a fatal wound seconds after it is inflicted, I will agree with you. This particular example, however, doesn't work for me because Jimmy was no closer to believing Clark was the RBB in Stiletto than Lois was in that episode. He had to have the proof staring at him in the face in order to believe it. Since Lois reacted similarly in Idol when Clark called her and the voice changer wavered, I'd say Lois has a good chance of coming to the same conclusion Jimmy did in Doomsday if something similar ever happened again.

If you recall, Lois witnessed Clark’s cuts and bruises miraculously healing quickly in Committed as well. I just think this Lois - who has been around Clark for 5 years now - has enough foundations to put two and two together as much as Jimmy ever did.

Lois was not shown to be clueless, though.

My “one episode and then, the next one” comment was meant towards the character continuity in general.

you are choosing to believe she doesn't know. You are choosing to believe she incompetent and clueless. I'm choosing to not pass judgment at all until there is some kind of clear cut canon confirming Lois did not know and continues to remain ignorant of Zod's role at RAO, Inc.

Here is that word again: choose. Why do you decide that I choose to do so when this is what I get as an impression as a viewer?

So because I won't give credence to your condemnation of Lois for not knowing Zod was the CEO of RAO when it wasn't shown either way, I'm somehow disregarding the truth? The truth according to whom? You, the other Lois fans who have posted? I've said repeatedly that the truth I've seen in the criticisms was that it was poor writing, but I cannot accept that Lois without a doubt didn't know Zod was the CEO of RAO as the TRUTH, because it's not. It's an opinion.

You misunderstood me. What I meant was the truth in both sides of opinions at the same time.

I’ll give you an example from this thread. One fellow poster said “if there is one thing that Smallville has taught us is that a healthy relationship is built on lies,” and then in the next post another person (you, in this case) responded, “I will say that relationships are strong when there's a foundation of trust. Lois and Clark are keeping secrets from each other for reasons other than lack of trust in one another.” I see the truth in both opinions. It’s just one example out of many. I always try to seek a truth in different opinions (though, not saying I always find one!).

The only truth, in this case, is show canon. Show canon is ambiguous and neither your interpretations or mine can be verified as truth.

Exactly. What I am saying above is basically the same, only we see it in the reverse way. I think both side has a truth. Because we get what we get and no one can control what each of us receive from show canon.

In this case, my bias leads me to being more positive towards Lois and yours leads you to a more negative view of the character. I don't presume to know which one of us is right nor do I presume to know what the writers intended to say about Lois on this particular issue when they wrote Conspiracy.

And I don’t presume to know that, either. Whatever the writers intend to say about Lois, it’s just not translating well in my view, and this is all what I’m saying.

I don't see my interpretation of scenes, episodes, and characters as actually having an effect on anyone other than myself. My thoughts are mine alone, and they are not expressed in this forum as a public service or as advice for the Smallville writers. I don't approach viewing the show as if I'm a judge on American Idol or Project Runway. I don't presume to have any authority or influence in these matters.

I hope you are not implying this is what I do in this forum because I can interpret your comment that way if I choose to take it negatively. I see our opinions on the board as a voice or feedback or ‘reaction of fans’ for the Smallville writers IF they choose to see them. Certainly NOT as a public service or as advice!

And definitely I don’t presume to have any authority, either. I’m not trying to debunk every speculation or jump on every review & opinion that differs from mine in every thread now, am I?

It would be better, and I would prefer less ambiguity too. I'm just filling in the blanks left by the ambiguity in such a way that I can still view Lois as a brilliant reporter (or at least on her way, since she's on a journey too). Blanks are blanks. They are like a blank page in a book that we each fill in based on our personal biases and ways of thinking.

I’m sure you’ve been told this many times before but filling in the blank is not our job.
I truly believe that the show can improve and making itself more appealing. I wish the show well and want it to go out on a high note. So here, I’m sure we wish the same thing once again but I’m just having a very different opinion as to what makes the show better. And for me, filling in the blank by myself is definitely not one of them.

I get what you mean about voicing concerns to writers to prevent poor writing from becoming canon. What I don't get is how what happened in Conspiracy fits into that model. I could understand complaining about what Lois did to get her scoop on the Blur in Stiletto because there's unambiguous proof that Lois' intent was to publish a fake story. I do not understand labeling what was left ambiguous in Conspiracy as just as much of an obvious blunder on Lois' part.

I am talking about overall continuity here which might or might not belong in the episode discussion threads such as this one. Either way, I don’t have time to pull all the references from show canon right now, but our conversation gave me a chance to look back at what I’ve been feeling with regard to her storyline and if there’s a thread that focused on the Lois’s journalistic aspects throughout her journey elsewhere, I’d love to join the discussion one of these days.

How will it "bite" Lois in the butt? Complaining about the ambiguity in the writing would address the issue of the writers being more clear about what Lois knows or doesn't know or what she's shown to investigate or not investigate.

I know it was me who used the future tense in the first place but actually I think it already did. The S9 made me less of SVLois fan. I don’t really know why. I’ve seen another Lois fan who expressed the same sentiment on this board but she doesn’t elaborate much (and posting less these days just like myself) so I don’t know what has happened to some of us who used to adore everything about her. I need to psychoanalyze myself for figuring it out. ------> *crying inside*

I realize you put this supposition on your part in the form of a question, but that's quite a generalization to make.

Why “generalization” when I was obviously asking you, Libby? And if this is “quite a generalization to make” in your eyes, then telling me “if your natural reaction to ambiguity is to see only the negative aspects of Lois, then it indicates a negative bias towards the character,” is not??

I’ve been always a Lois fan (and I still am). If I start having a negative bias towards this Lois, it wasn’t there to begin with but the bad writing could do that to a fan I guess. Again, I’m not only talking about Conspiracy. I am talking about the character continuity.


* * *

By the way, please PM me your complaints list via PM. I’d love to hear what you have to say!

.

[KalEltheBoyscout]

Not to mention she's seen Clark wearing the blue shirt/red jacket outfit before the "Red-Blue Blur" and then now that he's the Blur, he dresses in black shirt/black jacket outfits as Clark Kent. And she still can't put two and two together?

[Supermania]

otherwise, she would have discovered that Clark's friend Zod was chairman and CEO of RAO Inc.


In Crossfire, Zod reveals that he is Chairman and CEO of RAO Inc. during Tess's 3D presentation of the solar towers

In Disciple, Lois meets Zod, and Zod indicates he is a friend of Clark's

In Persuasion, we see Lois and Clark investigating the site of the RAO towers, and Lois suspects they are up to something (indicating she is doing an investigation) - I guess she just forgot to check on who the CEO is...

In Conspiracy, Zod tells Lois he is an FBI man...she investigates and finds out he is not listed with any of the agencies...but still does not make the connection to RAO


That's some hard nosed investigating there Lois...

...and this coming from a big fan of ED's portrayal of Lois Lane


Come on writers...gotta be a little less sloppy

Good one! He reveals this information publicly as well; I suppose it could be plausible given that no photo was actually taken of Zod as far as I know therefore Lois couldn't have seen his picture in the paper or anything. Also consider that Lois has only been an investigative reporter for two years now - she isn't the fully fleshed out reporter we see in the comics.

[ginevrakent]

Because of the unbelievably rapid construction, it makes you wonder if the towers have been already existed in the Metropolis back then. So now you think it didn’t exist in the Idol timeline? Which scene/show canon/dialogue had changed your mind?

Exactly. I was just speculating back then. After I saw Persuasion, and Lois was mentioning how fast the towers were being constructed, I figured that's what TPTB wanted me to believe about the pace of construction. Just because I fanwanked that the the towers were visible in some capacity prior to Disciple, doesn't mean I was right or that it was canon. In hindsight, I guess we have to believe what Tess said in Pandora - the plans for the towers and the actual towers weren't known until Disciple. This makes sense actually, since Tess deduced in Pandora that the only way Lois could have the image of the towers in her brain was because the rumors she'd visited the future were true. She wouldn't have thought that if Lois could have simply had that image in her memory from actually observing construction in person or in a photo at some earlier time. In sum, I don't think it's fair to accuse Lois of being a poor investigative reporter because she didn't recognize the towers from her dreams. She never saw anything from her dreams come to fruition before Idol, and after Idol those memories were erased.

Waller supposedly knows that Lois is a great journalist according to Durance – I said that because we don’t really know how Waller thinks that a reporter who is still working at the basement is the best one out there. (And if Lois is, why she hasn’t been promoted yet? Her editor wouldn’t agree with the assessment? Or does Tess somehow stand in the way of her promotion? Or is it because the show can’t afford another set?) So this is the one of the threads I’m definitely looking forward to, right now.

I'm looking forward to it too. I believe Waller singled Lois out, even as a basement reporter, because of her record of reporting on superheroes like the Green Arrow and The Blur.

Did we get to see how Clark or Chloe – the two closest people to Lois – try to figure out about those memories? None. But they both let Tess get to them before they do.

Yes, I agree that this was a dropped thread. I thought we were talking about Lois in Conspiracy and Lois as an investigative journalist, not dissecting the show as a whole.

Now, I don’t want to open a can of worms so I won’t talk about the solar towers but that’s just another example of setting up the thread and -------------no narrative in between (on screen anyway) ------------- then WHAM!!! Straight to the execution of the story thread. This is a typical pattern in this show (imo) and how those expectations set myself up for disappointment. I really wish we get to see “------------- “ part instead of filling it up by ourselves.

Me too. Still, I feel as if we're drifting from the topic at hand.

Supsfan already pointed me out and I also see the flaw in my argument. I was talking from my (as a viewer) perspective instead of Lois’s POV. Sorry to confuse you.

No problem.

If you recall, Lois witnessed Clark’s cuts and bruises being miraculously healing quickly in Committed as well. I just think this Lois - who has been around Clark for 5 years now - has enough foundations to put two and two together as much as Jimmy ever did.

I think that just goes with the territory on this show. They did the same thing with practically every other character at one point or another. Lois has even been shown to make miraculous recoveries from severe injuries. These are moments where the show either drops the ball writing wise or they are asking us to suspend our disbelief. That moment with Jimmy in Doomsday doesn't fall into this category, though, because it was as if they were shining a bright spotlight on the notion of Clark's quick healing.

Reflecting on previous moments throughout the series can illuminate the issue of the level of inquisitiveness and intelligence one is depicted as having in relation to figuring out Clark's secret:

ArrivalClark: How long have you known?
Chloe : I guess I've always had my suspicions. The quick exits, the miraculous recoveries, the lame excuses, but I think when I saw you catch a car like it was a beach ball, that kinda confirmed everything.
Clark : Why didn't you say anything?
Chloe : I figured if you wanted to tell me you were part of the super power persuasion, you would when you were ready. On your terms; not on mine.
Clark: You're a good friend, Chloe.

Arctic
Kara: Even he thinks he is. When I went home to Krypton, I learned the truth about his fate. He won't save mankind. He'll destroy it.
Lex: Who is it?
Kara: Don't you already know?

Even Lex, evil genius that he is, obsessively investigated Clark to the detriment of their friendship and didn't figure it out on his own or until the bitter end. Even so, it's not as if Lois hasn't been shown to have her suspicions.

With regards to Lois and her occasional penchant to pry into Superman's identity, I would say that was more attributable to older versions of the character. The modern version of Lois Lane, to my recollection, didn't engage in any significant reflection on Clark being Superman or engage in significant efforts to unmask him. I can't recall THLois or KBLois showing any notable curiosity or interest, so I don't feel justified in leveling criticism at EDLois for handling things as she has been.

Furthermore, as Erica Durance stated in her recent interview, leaving it ambiguous as to whether Lois knows deep down that Clark really is a superhero seems to be the current approach:

People really want to know your opinion on whether or not Lois ever learns Clark's secret before the series comes to an end.
That's kind of one of those existential questions. Does she ever know? Does she know deep down? Who knows? I ask myself that all the time. I don't know what they have planned for me...

Do you want her to find out?
I don't know. Maybe she already does on some level. I like the secret. It keeps it interesting. I'll say this though. I think that, being that the show is about Superman, in regards to Lois knowing or not knowing, whatever makes it easier for Clark's character. That's kind of how I feel. There's got to be somebody that is in his camp, that is supportive ... whether he tells the truth to her or not. Up until now, he's had a lot of characters that are like, 'Tell me the truth or I'm out of here.' And that's the one thing that Lois doesn't want to be.

Lois has shown a history of suspecting Clark is hiding something, however. She says in Oracle that she knows he keeps a lot to himself. In a deleted scene in Hypnotic she echoes those sentiments. In Idol, Lois says that deep down she's always known that Clark was a hero, and in Persuasion Lois reveals her belief that Clark may, in fact, be hiding a big secret. Lois has shown she suspects Clark is hiding something in the following instances:

Idol

Lois: It's just sometimes I feel like I see a whole other side of you than anyone else.
Clark: Lois?
Lois: It's okay. It's my hero complex to resolve.

Hypnotic (deleted scene @0:27)

Lois: You know, I've always had a feeling you were keeping a secret.

Infamous

Lois: The disappearing acts, the half-baked excuses... all this time, I just coughed it up to a classic to a classic case of Peter Pan syndrome [...] How did I not put these pieces together? I mean, I-I lived with you, and now we practically work on top of each other. I mean, have I been high this entire time?

This seems like an instance reminiscent of Pride & Prejudice and the traditional Superman mythos dynamic of underestimating Clark Kent.

Idol

Lois: You know, sometimes I do feel that Clark is hiding something
Lois: I've always known, deep down, that you were a hero.

So basically, deep down Lois does have her suspicions, but her philosophy is not to press the matter. Lois was further convinced to push herself to disregard her suspicions in Idol when her therapist helped her to realize that for her to resolve her feelings and move forward with Clark, she'd have to deal with her hero complex. She doesn't want to weigh Clark down with "shining armor" even if it fits him. It's this approach which Chloe adopted in S4 and Clark praised at the start of S5.

This is Lois' philosophy on secrets as she articulated it to Chloe in Pariah:

Chloe: Lois, if -- if you found out something -- something someone didn't want you to know about them -- would you tell them?
Lois: That depends. Is that person someone you care about?
Chloe: Yeah.
Lois: And has keeping the secret hurt anyone?
Chloe: No.
Lois: Then my answer is no. If I really cared about that person, I wouldn't tell them that I knew. But I would go out of my way to be supportive of them so that hopefully, one day, they would be comfortable enough to tell me themselves.

Clark seems to like this approach based on this exchange in Arrival:

Clark: Why didn't you say anything.
Chloe: I figured if you wanted to tell me you were part of the super power persuasion, you would when you were ready. On your terms; not on mine .
Clark: You're a good friend, Chloe.

This is the same concept that some like to apply to when an individual is either in or out of the closet as a homosexual. Ella, another member here, has done a great job articulating this particular perspective on the secret. However, I've also seen it reflected in the current television landscape, specifically Glee. The following is a scene from the episode "Preggers" between Kurt (a teenage boy who identifies himself as gay) and his father:

Kurt Hummel: Dad. I have something that I want to say. I'm glad that you're proud of me. But I don't want to lie anymore. Being a part of the Glee Club and football has really shown me that I can be anything, and what I am, is, I'm gay.
Burt Hummel: I know.
Kurt Hummel: Really?
Burt Hummel: I've known since you were three. All you wanted for your birthday was a pair of sensible heels. I guess I'm not totally in love with the idea, but, if that's who you are, there's nothing I can do about it. And I love you just as much. Ok?
[They hug]
Burt Hummel: Thanks for telling me Kurt.
[He starts to go]
Burt Hummel: You sure, right?
Kurt Hummel: Yeah Dad, I'm sure.
Burt Hummel: I'm just checking.

Now according to this, Kurt's father has always suspected his son was gay, but he didn't confront his son about it or engage in investigations to prove that it was true. Chloe may have suspected that Clark was hiding something too, just like Lois seems to at present, but Chloe was never really shown figuring it out on her own either. In fact, Alicia had this to say to Chloe in Pariah:

Chloe: Alicia, what are you doing here?
Alicia : Chloe Sullivan..ace reporter. You write all these articles about the people you call "freaks," and you don't even realize that someone close to you is one of them. Why are you ignoring what's right in front of your face, Chloe? Don't you want to know the truth about Clark Kent?

This then reminds me of the events of Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman and the interactions between Lois and the two time travelers, H.G. Wells and Tempus in the episode, "Tempus Fugitive" in which Lois gets clued into Clark's dual identity briefly:

Lois: If you wanna kill Superman, I don't know why you're going to Smallville or 1966.
Tempus: She doesn't know yet. Oh, this is good. This is really good. Um, Lois, did you know that, in the future, you're revered at the same level as Superman? Why there are books about you, statues, an interactive game. You're even a breakfast cereal.
Lois: Really?
Tempus: Yes. But, as much as everybody loves you, there is one question that keeps coming up: "How dumb was she?" Here, I'll show you what I mean. Look [puts glasses on] I'm Clark Kent. [Takes glasses off] No, I'm Superman. [Puts glasses on] Mild-mannered reporter. [Takes glasses off] Superhero. Hello! Duh! Clark Kent is Superman. Ha, ha, ha. Well, that was worth the whole trip. To actually meet the most galactically stupid woman who ever lived.
[...]
H.G. Wells: What's the matter, my dear?
Lois: Oh, you've been to the future, Mr. Wells. Is it true what Tempus said about me?
H.G. Wells: Oh, yes. You're as highly-revered as any woman in history.
Lois: Oh, no, I'm meant about being galactically stupid.
H.G. Wells: No, no, no, Miss Lane, not stupid, blind. It is one of the many things that makes your story so timeless. Why children never tire of hearing it at bedtime. Why parents never outgrow it. Generation after generation, we are all blinded by love, Miss Lane. Especially that one great love that changes us forever.

In sum, I believe Lois does suspect something with regards to Clark. However, she chooses to dismiss her suspicions or simply not pursue them further out of love.

You misunderstood me. What I meant was the truth in both sides of opinions at the same time.

Gotcha.

Exactly. What I am saying above is basically the same, only we see it in the reverse way. I think both side has a truth. Because we get what we get and no one can control what each of us receive from show canon.

Yep.

And I don’t presume to know that, either. Whatever the writers intend to say about Lois, it’s just not translating well in my view, and this is all what I’m saying.

Okay, although that does present an interesting conundrum of where the problem begins and ends. For example, sometimes when the CW broadcasts Smallville here in the States some people have worse signals than others, and so the audio or visual components of the show aren't as clear. This problem could be caused by those sending the signal or those receiving the signal or a combination of the two.

I hope you are not implying this is what I do in this forum because I can interpret your comment that way if I choose to take it negatively. I see our opinions on the board as a voice or feedback or ‘reaction of fans’ for the Smallville writers IF they choose to see them. Certainly NOT as a public service or as advice!

To address your choice to take what I said negatively, I will clarify that what you allege I was implying, I was not implying at all. I spoke for myself, and only myself. If I wanted to say something about you, I'd be more direct.

And definitely I don’t presume to have any authority, either. I’m not trying to debunk every speculation or jump on every review & opinion that differs from mine in every thread now, am I?

No, you aren't, and I never said you were. Even if someone were to do all of those things, that wouldn't give me the impression that a person like that felt they had any authority. Rather, I would view him or her as someone who was simply passionate about the show and liked to analyze it.

I’m sure you’ve been told this many times before but filling in the blank is not our job.

I have been told, and since you were sure I had been told this obvious fact repeatedly, it's interesting you chose to reiterate it. Thanks for repeating something that I've actually said myself and complained about myself. I've said repeatedly that I am frustrated with the ambiguity on the show and that it makes sense to criticize the ambiguity.

So here, I’m sure we wish the same thing once again but I’m just having a very different opinion as to what makes the show better. And for me, filling in the blank by myself is definitely not one of them.

I'm not sure we have a "very different opinion" at all. I've been consistent in saying that being vocally critical about ambiguous writing is something I would do and should be done because it is problematic. I've only said that the way I deal with such ambiguity when it comes to interpreting what is or is not show canon is to not assume anything either way whereas it seems others are perfectly fine with assuming something negative about Lois based on ambiguity.

Why “generalization” when I was obviously asking you, Libby? And if this is “quite a generalization to make” in your eyes, then telling me “if your natural reaction to ambiguity is to see only the negative aspects of Lois, then it indicates a negative bias towards the character,” is not??

I don't know what you're getting at. In my response I made it clear that I understood you were asking me a question, but since your question was in such black and white terms, it did come across as a generalization. You didn't ask for my opinion in an open-ended fashion. Instead, you made it an either/or question, asking me whether I was happy (to use your words, "nor gripe at all") or unhappy with the way Lois has been written when my opinion could have easily been somewhere in the middle. Then you proceeded to basically answer for me by saying "if your answer is yes, then more power to you."

And no, what I said was not a generalization considering you've admitted that you have a negative bias toward the character. When did you admit this? Here:

Actually, no. I am criticizing both. Lois is a brilliant reporter in one episode and then she is clueless in the next one. It hurts the character and her credibility of being a brilliant reporter and in the end --- the character as a whole, imo.

What if I say there is? We both agreed that all of us interpret each scene of the show differently. You keep using the word “choose”, but I’m not deliberately trying to choose anything. I get what I get from what I see. That’s all. And if I didn’t get it, ….. is it my fault?

You've been saying that you're not choosing to see Lois as a bad reporter, but that you instinctively or naturally draw that conclusion. This implies a natural, or uncontrollable, reaction to ambiguity which essentially results in you forming a negative opinion about Lois. It seems as if you're saying that your natural response to any ambiguity is to take a critical stance. As the definition of "bias" indicates, a "bias can be unconscious or conscious in awareness." From what you've said, since you deny that you choose how to fill in the blanks left by ambiguity, your interpretation of ambiguous information is to unconsciously take the position that what happened hurt the character of Lois Lane when, in fact, that would only be true if you took the blanks left by the careless writers and filled it in with your guess that Lois didn't know that Zod was the CEO of RAO.

In other words, you made it show canon, in your eyes, that Lois didn't know, and therefore she was made to look like a clueless reporter. Since this is the more negative stance to take on the ambiguity of the scene, I cannot help but label how you've described your own way of interacting with the "text" of Smallville as anything but a negative bias.

By the way, if you'd like to know why I was using the term "choose" when discussing the interpretation of scenes, here are some of the theories on cognition which inform my understanding of how such interpretations occur:

The Cognitive Model of Emotional Response is based on the premise (scientific fact) that our thoughts cause our feelings and behaviors, not external things, like people, situations or events. The benefit of this is that we can change the way we think, therefore impacting on our emotional response, resulting in a changed behavioral outcome. Even if the Initial Sensitizing Event (ISE) cannot be changed, we can learn to think differently about that event and end up with a positive response.

Hopefully that makes sense and clarifies things a bit.

I’ve been always a Lois fan (and I still am). If I start having a negative bias towards this Lois, it wasn’t there to begin with but the bad writing could do that to a fan I guess. Again, I’m not only talking about Conspiracy. I am talking about the character continuity.

I understand. As you can tell from some of my previous responses, though, I disagree with some of your qualms regarding Lois thus far this season. These disagreements will naturally result from the distinctive ways each of us as individuals process the information, or lack thereof, the show gives us.

By the way, please PM me your complaints list via PM. I’d love to hear what you have to say!.

Sure, I'll try to get them to you some time this week.