Lois a bad reporter

[Dyanara]

On imdb, someone brought up that this episode kind of gave the impression that Lois isn't aa good reporter. She is too biased when it comes to superheroes and she takes the route that the people who dont agree with her pov aren't worth anything or misguided, Cat Grant, or deserve to be destroyed, Godfrey.

[Darth Pipes]

Oh yeah, she's awful. She can show no impartiality and is only a great reporter off-screen.

[Dyanara]

You do realize that a journalist is suppose to be un-biased and most, if not all, of them live by the 1st amendment. So why would Lois be ok with ruining another persons life and career because he just so happens to not agree with her that superheroes are the best thing since sliced bread?

[geminis]

If she were a bad reporter I don't think she would have a job for very long. She may still be in the basement, but she's still at the Planet.

Then there's the fact of 'what if Lois is right?' Cat isn't necessarily being very impartial in her beliefs about super heros either, and Godfrey is no angel even when not being used as a meat sack by Darkseid.

I also wouldn't say that Cat's life and career have been ruined.

[Dyanara]

I was not talking about Cat's I was talking about Godfrey. He was doing nothing illegal about being in that S*M club even if it was disgusting.
And your defense of Lois is that Cat is a biased bigot as well? Ok two wrongs apparently make a right.

[ginevrakent]

On imdb, someone brought up that this episode kind of gave the impression that Lois isn't aa good reporter. She is too biased when it comes to superheroes and she takes the route that the people who dont agree with her pov aren't worth anything or misguided, Cat Grant, or deserve to be destroyed, Godfrey.

Lois may be a passionate supporter of heroes, but her efforts to discredit Gordon Godfrey did not reek of bad journalism, IMO. Lois merely decided to do some digging into Godfrey's past to determine if, in fact, he practiced what he preached. When Lois followed Godfrey to Club Desaad and ultimately exposed his "dark side" to the world, her actions were no different than the actions of enterprising journalists - good journalists - who unearth evidence of child abuse in the Catholic Church or proof of homosexual activity among those who are prominent gay-bashers. The key, of course, is to expose hypocrisy.

It would be one thing for Lois to be biased against hero-bashers and subsequently smear them in the press with virtually nothing but her own opinionated rants, but it's completely different when Lois can actually back up her criticisms with proof. A journalist who prints the truth, even if it serves her bias, is still a good journalist.

[cksidekick]

A journalist who prints the truth, even if it serves her bias, is still a good journalist.

That makes a good editorial writer not a good journalist. Using facts to form an opinion and write it down is one thing.

Seeking out the dirt only on one side of an issue is quite another. It lacks a little thing called journalistic integrity. It's the defining factor in an "agenda".


.

[Supsfan]

Lois may be a passionate supporter of heroes, but her efforts to discredit Gordon Godfrey did not reek of bad journalism, IMO. Lois merely decided to do some digging into Godfrey's past to determine if, in fact, he practiced what he preached. When Lois followed Godfrey to Club Desaad and ultimately exposed his "dark side" to the world, her actions were no different than the actions of enterprising journalists - good journalists - who unearth evidence of child abuse in the Catholic Church or proof of homosexual activity among those who are prominent gay-bashers. The key, of course, is to expose hypocrisy.

It would be one thing for Lois to be biased against hero-bashers and subsequently smear them in the press with virtually nothing but her own opinionated rants, but it's completely different when Lois can actually back up her criticisms with proof. A journalist who prints the truth, even if it serves her bias, is still a good journalist.

I have to agree I don't see anything wrong if you can expose hypocrisy

[cksidekick]

I have to agree I don't see anything wrong if you can expose hypocrisy

There isn't anything wrong exposing hypocricy. Looking to expose it when it's convenient and ignoring it for the same reason is hypocritical in itself.


I don't mind watching Lois struggle with it as long as she makes the right choice in the end. I hope a story pops up that will cause her to write the negative truth about a vigilante.


.

[borednow]

That makes a good editorial writer not a good journalist. Using facts to form an opinion and write it down is one thing.

Seeking out the dirt only on one side of an issue is quite another. It lacks a little thing called journalistic integrity. It's the defining factor in an "agenda".


.

Typically journalists don't do either, a good journalist reports the facts and the context but opinions should be out of it... but notice Lois did all of that to help Oliver, and Clark, she didn't print the story herself anyway, she gave the story to the tabloid she used to work at in the form of pictures which frankly spoke for themselves, she actually didn't write anything!

[ginevrakent]

That makes a good editorial writer not a good journalist. Using facts to form an opinion and write it down is one thing.

Seeking out the dirt only on one side or the other is quite another. It lacks a little thing called integrity.

A journalist is not required to write articles or perform investigations in order to accomplish some form of parity. Lois wasn't seeking out dirt, she was seeking out the truth--dirty or not. She followed a path of investigation. She had suspicions about Godfrey, so she first followed him to the church to confront him and learn more about his position. The fact that her investigation led her to overhearing his depraved plans and ideas, including a visit to the seedy Desaad Club, while undercover as his driver was what prompted her to pursue exposing Godfrey further.

Despite her initial bias, her investigation began with an interview at the church and then escalated from there. She wasn't seeking out dirt, per se, she was seeking the truth. In the process, she found that her suspicions were correct about Godfrey: He was a hypocrite and a menace.

----- Added 3 Minutes later -----

There isn't anything wrong exposing hypocricy. Looking to expose it when it's convenient and ignoring it for the same reason is hypocritical in itself.

Lois doesn't need to seek out much dirt on the vigilantes by going undercover. She has close personal relationships with two of the most reviled vigilantes. She knows them and she knows neither Clark nor Oliver are the things Godfrey accuses them of being. In short, there's nothing to expose. I would agree with you only if Lois was aware of some of Oliver's or Clark's dirty little secrets and purposefully sought to shield them from criticism by burying evidence.

[Dyanara]

Lois may be a passionate supporter of heroes, but her efforts to discredit Gordon Godfrey did not reek of bad journalism, IMO. Lois merely decided to do some digging into Godfrey's past to determine if, in fact, he practiced what he preached. When Lois followed Godfrey to Club Desaad and ultimately exposed his "dark side" to the world, her actions were no different than the actions of enterprising journalists - good journalists - who unearth evidence of child abuse in the Catholic Church or proof of homosexual activity among those who are prominent gay-bashers. The key, of course, is to expose hypocrisy.

It would be one thing for Lois to be biased against hero-bashers and subsequently smear them in the press with virtually nothing but her own opinionated rants, but it's completely different when Lois can actually back up her criticisms with proof. A journalist who prints the truth, even if it serves her bias, is still a good journalist.

Ok, being into S*M is not equal to raping children. And I personally have always had a problem with people playing gotcha with politicians or famous peoples personal lives ala Tiger Woods. Whoever he is boinking is nobody else business but he and his wifes.
But apart from that, as a good solid reporter, shouldnt Lois investigate both sides of a situation and story? She is the superhero apologist and blind supporter which seems to be a 21st century mentality amongst journalist. Instead of getting the story they just want to support what they believe in. You see a lot of this with political journalist, dems hate George Bush, reps hate Barack Obama and nothing they ever do will change that opinion.
The news should be unbiased and I thought that was the kind of reporter Lois was supposed to be.

[borednow]

A journalist is not required to write articles or perform investigations in order to accomplish some form of parity. Lois wasn't seeking out dirt, she was seeking out the truth--dirty or not. She followed a path of investigation. She had suspicions about Godfrey, so she first followed him to the church to confront him and learn more about his position. The fact that her investigation led her to overhearing his depraved plans and ideas, including a visit to the seedy Desaad Club, while undercover as his driver was what prompted her to pursue exposing Godfrey further.

Despite her initial bias, her investigation began with an interview at the church and then escalated from there. She wasn't seeking out dirt, per se, she was seeking the truth. In the process, she found that her suspicions were correct about Godfrey: He was a hypocrite and a menace.

Also this is classic Lois "I think this guy is dirty! I'm going to find out what he is doing!" Lane from every incarnation. So if this Lois is a "Bad Reporter" Well then that's what her character should be.

[Degobunny]

For all we know Godfrey did nothing with Club Dasaad until he was posessed by Darkseid. So Lois ruined an innocent man's career. That to me indicates bad journalism.

[ginevrakent]

For all we know Godfrey did nothing with Club Dasaad until he was posessed by Darkseid. So Lois ruined an innocent man's career. That to me indicates bad journalism.

How exactly was Lois supposed to know Godfrey was possessed by "The Darkness?" In addition, Darkseid has been explicitly described as someone who possesses "wavering souls" so the fact that Godfrey was possessed already indicates he wasn't an innocent man.