MikeMI realize here it is used for dramatic purposes but I have always wondered about the idea often put forth in the Lois and Clark universe (mostly by Perry) that the Daily Planet needed to have legally admissible facts with folks willing to stand up in court and testify in order to print a story. The idea that they had to legally prove guilt seems a bit far fetched for newspaper reporters. Normally they could print based upon a paper trail that substantially supported the story they printed (which Lois has in spades here). So many stories are printed based upon 'sources close to the matter'(witness Watergate for instance). The burden of legally proving the guilt, to me, is a police matter.
I always wondered about Perry's determination that every investigative story have cold hard facts to back this up. Since this is an alternative universe the Daily Planet needs evidence to back up their story. It is briefly mentioned in this story that Perry got his job as Senior Editor because the previous editor, Mr. Krebs, allowed a story by Ralph Lombard to be printed, the facts were incorrect. The Daily Planet narrowly missed getting seriously sued. Krebs was allowed to go into early retirement and Ralph was banished to the morgue for a few years.
Such an unpleasant experience made Perry determined to never have something like that happen on his watch – hence the need for evidence.
Lois is simply following the lead of her boss and editor. Since they will be going up against big guns with deep pockets like LexCorp and DMG they need to have their ducks in a row.
In our world it is decidedly different. Thank goodness Woodward and Bernstein listened to their source and ran with the story!
This was a interesting topic to bring up. Kudos!
