Journalism Fail

Soooooo I haven't seen Thor yet, but I've been gearing up for it by watching the entire first season of The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes (not to be confused with the late '90s Avengers series, which isn't nearly as good). It's way more fun than a Marvel cartoon has any right to be, with plenty of snarky humor, great action, and surprisingly intricate plots--and it doesn't take itself as seriously as the old X-Men and Spider-man cartoons did. Much as I hate to express this much enthusiasm about any show that airs on a Disney channel, I can't wait for the second season. It's so good.

On the other hand, I can't hear the battle-cry "Avengers, assemble!" without picturing Thor and Iron Man struggling to put together some needlessly complex IKEA furniture while Hawkeye stands off to the side and mocks them. So there's that.

In any case: I've been rather excited about Thor, so I've been keeping up with the latest bits of information on ComicsAlliance and other such websites. My nerd rage was awakened, however, when I opened up Friday's issue of Express (a free paper for DC metro riders) and found this little gem, which really should have been subtitled "Why You Shouldn't Write About Comic Books if You've Never Actually Read Any."

The problem starts with the title. What the hell do you mean, "Thor [is] Actually a Heavyweight Compared to Some Heroes"? This isn't some jackass in a cape who picked up a hammer one day and decided to call himself Thor--this is the actual Asgardian god of thunder. He's an immortal flying brick with a magic indestructible hammer that controls lightning (REAL LIGHTNING!). He's gone toe-to-toe with some of the strongest beings in the Marvel Universe, including the freaking Hulk--who, as everyone should know, is the STRONGEST ONE THERE IS. You're damn right he's a heavyweight.

But it appears that the writer isn't taking issue with Thor's abilities as much as his apparent obscurity. She asserts that "Thor isn't a superhero many mainstream fans can identify — he's no Spider-Man," which makes me wonder if her definition of a "mainstream fan" is someone who's functionally retarded or who only reads Archie Comics. (That was redundant, wasn't it.) She goes on to say that Thor "isn't alone in the minor leagues of capery."

Okay, wow.

Thor (who first appeared in 1962) was a founding member of the Avengers and has had three self-titled series from 1966 to 2011 (the between-series breaks being from 1996-1998 and 2004-2007). Beyond that, he's appeared in numerous one-shots and limited-run series--not to mention all his appearances in other titles and Marvel Universe publicity stunts crossover events. In other words, Thor has consistently been a major player at Marvel for nearly fifty years. Even if someone hasn't read any Thor comics, chances are they'd at least recognize him. He's pretty fucking distinctive.

She then goes on to list three other obscure superheroes for no apparent reason and describes them with varying degrees of success. She cites the X-Man "Dust", real name Sooraya Qadir, as being "possibly the only Muslim superhero working today," evidently blissfully unaware of the Nightrunner controversy from this past December. But the most blatant inaccuracy is this:

"Another hero is The Atom, who can ... get really small. But that's not all! He can also get really big! His alter ego is Henry Pym, a genius with a Ph.D in biochemistry. He also has a helmet that lets him talk to bugs."

The Atom is a DC Comics superhero by the name of Ray Palmer. He can shrink. Henry "Hank" Pym is a Marvel Comics superhero (and another founding member of the Avengers) known as Ant Man/Giant Man/Goliath/Yellowjacket/Wasp. He can shrink, grow to giant size, and talk to insects. They have similar powers, but they're two completely different characters in completely different universes, and even the most cursory Wikipedia search shows how incredibly factually inaccurate the above statement is. It's like saying that Dumbledore is a wizard from Middle Earth who helped destroy the One Ring. I mean, you can see how I'd mix those two up, right? Dumbledore and Gandalf are both wizards with long white beards, so they must be interchangeable!

What's even worse is that she goes on to explain some pretty specific uses of the Atom's powers, like traveling through phone lines or entering Superman's bloodstream, even providing an issue title and number for the latter event. How the hell would you find that out but still manage to fuck up something as basic as an alter ego?

Gahhhh.

Now, I'm not a complete moron. While I do take comic books (and fiction in general) much more seriously than the average person, I know that this isn't exactly a catastrophe. There's war and poverty and global warming and the impending hordes of zombified Mayan warriors that will wipe out all life on earth next year (that's what this whole 2012 thing is about, right?)--so some factual inaccuracy in a minor article in a free newspaper doesn't mean a damn thing in the grand scheme of things.

Nevertheless, it pisses me off. It's just plain lazy journalism (and I use "journalism" extremely loosely here). If you run a newspaper and want to have someone write about comics, maybe you should assign the article to someone who actually reads comics. If you don't have someone who does, give the story to someone who actually knows how to do any research at all ever. If you don't have that, maybe you should just come up with a different idea. Or hire a competent staff.

In conclusion: As a free-thinking human, you're entitled to your opinions. If you think comics are stupid and pointless, that's well within your rights--but if you don't consider them to be worth the time it takes to do the required research, then don't fucking write about them. It's pretty simple.