S02.E04: The Inverse Method

[Noneofyourbusiness]

Also, they do live in a setting where the supernatural is real and the average person knows that metahumans and aliens exist, so maybe they're more likely to accept the possibility that a hallucination could be relevant. Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit to have thought of that.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Noneofyourbusiness

[ahisma]

6 hours ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Also, they do live in a setting where the supernatural is real and the average person knows that metahumans and aliens exist, so maybe they're more likely to accept the possibility that a hallucination could be relevant. Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit to have thought of that.

I think alternate universe selves would still be way out there to the average citizen. See JHI and Natalie keeping their origins secret so as not to be thought crazy.

It’s just very interesting that the actual journalistic sins of Lois are around her hiding information about her connection to the subject, and soft pedaling the story to protect Lucy. Whereas Lucy is so far down the rabbit hole that her huge objection to the story is, “Ally told me what I would see and (hopped up on drugs) I did. So you unethically, purposefully left out that Ally is right in order to smear her.” Which… I’m not sure Lois can get Lucy back.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

3 minutes ago, ahisma said:

I think alternate universe selves would still be way out there to the average citizen. See JHI and Natalie keeping their origins secret so as not to be thought crazy.

I don't think they're worried about being thought crazy, just about not standing out or being freaks, and it would be hard for John Henry to tell the truth without also revealing that he's Steel who works with Superman.

[superloislane]

17 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

From a traditional journalism standpoint, Lois's reporting of this story was at least arguably unethical on several fronts.

For comparison, the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics is here:

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

1.  The SPJ says, "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts." Lois had an obvious conflict of interest in that the story was about her sister. Rather than avoid it, she dove right into it. And Lois did not disclose this conflict of interest to at a minimum her readers, thereby depriving them of the ability to judge her reporting fairly. (I'd like to think that she disclosed it to Perry White or whoever her editor was, but who knows?)

2. The SPJ says, "Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted." Lois obscured that her source was her sister, granting anonymity where it may not have been warranted. Indeed, Ally presumably knew the source was Lucy (unless she has so many cultists almost dying who might have talked to Lucy's sister that she couldn't figure it out.) Hiding Lucy's identity might have shielded her from some other sorts of wrong, but I would say it was not warranted.

3. The SPJ says, "Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story." That Ally's practices may have succeeded (or may have just caused Lucy to have drug-induced hallucinations) is an important part of the context to the story that Lois stripped from the story because she clearly had a conflict and an agenda. 

Even though these things may not seem like much especially in this context where we a) implicitly trust Lois and b) know that Ally is sketchy AF, I can understand how to a reporter who idolized Lois, all three of these things together could make it seem like she actually has feet of clay.

1. Lois did disclose that a close family member was in the cult in the first few lines of the article.

2. Anonymity was perfectly acceptable in this instance for fear of retribution from other cult members.

3. Writing that Lucy saw 'her other true self' when she was overdosing on drugs would not be something any respectable journalist would include. Not only does it glorify drug abuse, but it also suggests that something which cannot at all be proven and was essentially an hallucination in the mind of a dying woman, might actually have occurred. It's like if you wrote about a drunk person seeing two versions of a person, but in reality there was only one, you wouldn't include their drunken sight seeing two versions because it has no relevance on the story. Even if Lois did include it, no editor would ever allow it to be published. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, superloislane said:

1. Lois did disclose that a close family member was in the cult in the first few lines of the article.

2. Anonymity was perfectly acceptable in this instance for fear of retribution from other cult members.

3. Writing that Lucy saw 'her other true self' when she was overdosing on drugs would not be something any respectable journalist would include. Not only does it glorify drug abuse, but it also suggests that something which cannot at all be proven and was essentially an hallucination in the mind of a dying woman, might actually have occurred. It's like if you wrote about a drunk person seeing two versions of a person, but in reality there was only one, you wouldn't include their drunken sight seeing two versions because it has no relevance on the story. Even if Lois did include it, no editor would ever allow it to be published. 

I don't remember that Lois disclosed that a close family member was in the cult. Pretty sure she didn't say that her source was the close family member. Where are you getting that?

The other cult members 100 percent would have known or figured out Lucy was the source. How many people did the cult have that nearly died? As far as we know, the one who actually did and Lucy. Presumably, Lois would have mentioned that there were more, but IIRC she only has talked about Lucy and the other woman. Even assuming that there were more, who would any sane person knowing about Lucy's cult membership conclude was likely the source for Lois Lane's article: Cult Member X, Cult Member Y or Lucy Lane? So anonymity would not protect Lucy from retaliation from the cult at all. Now, there are a lot of other potential harms to Lucy that anonymity would serve -- things like harm to her reputation, harm to her self-esteem, harm to how the outside world might treat her.  But I think that reasonable people can come down on both sides of whether that is enough to justify anonymity.

Full disclosure: I used to be a journalist. So I feel qualified to say that it's not easy/accurate to say "no respectable journalist" would do X in most cases. There are different takes on journalism, and even within a given take, there's at least some room for diverging opinions or mistakes. One take has often been called/criticized as "flat earth journalism." The idea behind it is if someone says something as preposterous as "the earth is flat" a journalist is obliged to report that they have that belief in detail and then also quote scientists and the evidence that shows that is round. In other words, you put all the facts out in support of both sides and let readers make their own determinations, even if your personal beliefs are that one side is full of BS. 

I don't think saying Lucy claimed to see her true self on drugs glorifies drug use, especially since the drugs almost killed her. Further, it arguably isn't the role of the reporter to care if it DOES glorify drug use. It's the role to present the facts, and the fact that Lucy claimed that the method worked is a relevant one (unlike in the analogy of a drunk driver seeing double, without more context). Rather, arguably the proper way to report the story would to say Lucy claims to have seen her other self, but there is only her account of this and there's no objective proof of her encountering her other self. There is, however, objective proof that she nearly died.

[scarynikki12]

1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I don't remember that Lois disclosed that a close family member was in the cult. Pretty sure she didn't say that her source was the close family member. Where are you getting that

I don’t remember which but Lois reminded Chrissy that she disclosed her personal connection in the article and then revealed that said connection was Lucy. 

[superloislane]

1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I don't remember that Lois disclosed that a close family member was in the cult. Pretty sure she didn't say that her source was the close family member. Where are you getting that?

The other cult members 100 percent would have known or figured out Lucy was the source. How many people did the cult have that nearly died? As far as we know, the one who actually did and Lucy. Presumably, Lois would have mentioned that there were more, but IIRC she only has talked about Lucy and the other woman. Even assuming that there were more, who would any sane person knowing about Lucy's cult membership conclude was likely the source for Lois Lane's article: Cult Member X, Cult Member Y or Lucy Lane? So anonymity would not protect Lucy from retaliation from the cult at all. Now, there are a lot of other potential harms to Lucy that anonymity would serve -- things like harm to her reputation, harm to her self-esteem, harm to how the outside world might treat her.  But I think that reasonable people can come down on both sides of whether that is enough to justify anonymity.

Full disclosure: I used to be a journalist. So I feel qualified to say that it's not easy/accurate to say "no respectable journalist" would do X in most cases. There are different takes on journalism, and even within a given take, there's at least some room for diverging opinions or mistakes. One take has often been called/criticized as "flat earth journalism." The idea behind it is if someone says something as preposterous as "the earth is flat" a journalist is obliged to report that they have that belief in detail and then also quote scientists and the evidence that shows that is round. In other words, you put all the facts out in support of both sides and let readers make their own determinations, even if your personal beliefs are that one side is full of BS. 

I don't think saying Lucy claimed to see her true self on drugs glorifies drug use, especially since the drugs almost killed her. Further, it arguably isn't the role of the reporter to care if it DOES glorify drug use. It's the role to present the facts, and the fact that Lucy claimed that the method worked is a relevant one (unlike in the analogy of a drunk driver seeing double, without more context). Rather, arguably the proper way to report the story would to say Lucy claims to have seen her other self, but there is only her account of this and there's no objective proof of her encountering her other self. There is, however, objective proof that she nearly died.

From episode 2: 

Lois: "Chrissy, in the first line in that article, I disclosed that I had a personal connection, that a family member had been involved in the cult."

The anonymous source could have easily been family members of the woman who actually died while in the cult. You don't withdraw anonymity from a source because the others could possibly figure it out anyway. Besides, a person can easily request to be anonymous, it doesn't even need to be a life or death situation. As long as the journalist has double checked the source, and usually have others or other information to back it up, it doesn't matter if they're anonymous.

Also full disclosure, I actually am currently a journalist, which is probably why this plot annoyed me. The role of the journalist is not to put random pieces of information from all sides into a piece and then ask the reader to understand to pretend to be 'balanced'. It's to dissect the truth to get the full picture and tell that to the reader. Sure there are different ideas of journalism, but that shouldn't be in question. I once had to remove a line that stated a particular supplement had medicinal benefits because there was no proof to back that up. And that was just vitamins! I can't imagine any journalist ever writing, 'Ally told my source to take a bunch of pills but my source said she saw something cool while she lay dying in a bathtub, so who really knows the truth?' Sure maybe she could have quoted her saying it, but she would have had to explain there was zero evidence behind it to get it across to the reader, which also would have pissed Lucy off. But what would that do to the story, it's really of no relevance?

Edited February 9, 2022 by superloislane

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, superloislane said:

From episode 2: 

Lois: "Chrissy, in the first line in that article, I disclosed that I had a personal connection, that a family member had been involved in the cult."

The anonymous source could have easily been family members of the woman who actually died while in the cult. You don't withdraw anonymity from a source because the others could possibly figure it out anyway. Besides, a person can easily request to be anonymous, it doesn't even need to be a life or death situation. As long as the journalist has double checked the source, and usually have others or other information to back it up, it doesn't matter if they're anonymous.

Also full disclosure, I actually am currently a journalist, which is probably why this plot annoyed me. The role of the journalist is not to put random pieces of information from all sides into a piece and then ask the reader to understand to pretend to be 'balanced'. It's to dissect the truth to get the full picture and tell that to the reader. Sure there are different ideas of journalism, but that shouldn't be in question. I once had to remove a line that stated a particular supplement had medicinal benefits because there was no proof to back that up. And that was just vitamins! I can't imagine any journalist ever writing, 'Ally told my source to take a bunch of pills but my source said she saw something cool while she lay dying in a bathtub, so who really knows the truth?' Sure maybe she could have quoted her saying it, but she would have had to explain there was zero evidence behind it to get it across to the reader, which also would have pissed Lucy off. But what would that do to the story, it's really of no relevance?

Fair enough that she disclosed the personal connection. IMO, it is not the same thing as disclosing that her source was that family member, though. Which arguably she should have done, because it certainly would affect how people might perceive the story.

Again, the SPJ and I would say journalism generally holds that the default for sources is for them to not be anonymous. In practice, of course, anonymity is granted all too freely and certainly in less serious situations than cults foisting potentially lethal drugs on people. 

I guess we don't have much knowledge of what was reported, but I think it is safe to say that it contained information about Lucy's near-death experience and presumably other insider information in the article was unlikely to have come from family members of the dead woman. I would presume that the article either directly identified the source as a member of the cult or quoted/described first-hand experience with the cult that a relative of a cult member would not have had. I am under the impression that the dead woman died before Lucy had her experience, although that could be a mistaken impression. It would be hypothetically possible that it was quoting the dead cultist prior to her death. But in such a case, why keep her anonymous?

Anyway, I do think that the best practice would be to fully describe the source's reaction to the the drug, including the claim by the source that it "worked" but then include the context that the claim doesn't appear to be objectively provable or tested, and even if it were the risk is way too great.

That the cult's methods might actually work is of great relevance to the story. I don't see how one can say it doesn't change things if -- as I'm guessing is the case -- the cult is actually putting people in touch with alternate versions of themselves (either from pre-Crisis or other universes) and is therefore enabling members to make changes in their lives versus the cult is making people just experience hallucinations. 

P.S. Good luck fighting the good fight that is journalism.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Chicago Redshirt

[John Potts]

OK, I loved Clark going “Don’t eavesdrop on your mother… but since you did, what did she say?” Though can’t Clark just listen in himself? He seemed to be more interested in what the Podcast said than what Lois said (or didn't say). And I fail to see why Chrissie was so upset to learn Lois intervened in Lucy’s OD. Lucy may have been trying to “Expand her mind” (or whatever) but she nearly died. It’s very hard to see that being spun as something “evil”. Maybe it's a breach of journalistic ethics, but it's an entirely understandable one. Which is why I'm wondering if Chrissie's "betrayal" might actually be a ruse.

On 2/2/2022 at 2:35 AM, scarynikki12 said:

Maybe that's what Ally's LSD does? Her disciples get a glimpse of who they were before Crisis and they just think it's some spiritual awakening.

Neat idea! That would completely fit, although it could be kind of risky for Ally to do that, unless she gets her own "previews" of their visions. Surely a lot of the alternative lives are going to be worse. 

Hey! Sarah’s sister sighting!

Aww, baby Supes is learning how to avoid cameras!

On 2/2/2022 at 5:27 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

It seems like going on the "Dark Web" is not where a cult leader trying to re-establish her base would want to go. It seems like she's going to want to cast as wide a net as possible and get as many money and followers as possible. Restricting herself to the Dark Web is probably not going to likely attract vulnerable and gullible people in particularly high numbers.

Yeah, the "Dark Web" sounds suitably sinister, but it's absolutely not where you go to recruit new followers (unless you're actually looking for mercenaries to overthrow the government). You run an extremely bright and open website promising they can expand your mind and broaden your horizons (or whatever) and run images of all the successful people (real or fake) who are now CEOs/Mayors/Community Leaders thanks to your (suitably vague) "Program". And at just $1000 a session all this can be yours! Throw in some legalese about how outcomes may vary and it's probably not even fraudulent (NB: This is not legal advice!).

On 2/6/2022 at 8:42 PM, statsgirl said:

wouldn't one of the first things Superman would do would be to try to make contact with his doppleganger and find out why he's so angry?

Considering how chatty he was with Morgan Edge, you'd think he'd try to talk to himself. And I did like that while Bizarro is giving Supes headaches, Clark seems to do the same to Bizarro. I would love it if the solution is for the two of them to work together (though Bizarro doesn't seem very talkative).

On 2/6/2022 at 8:42 PM, statsgirl said:

I hope that Irons makes it, I'm really enjoying the bro vibe that he has with Clark now.

If he survived the episode (and he did) he should be safe - at least until the Season Finale.