4 ms·

No. Anyone can still report and call themselves a journalist or news source. It’s not about shutting people out — it’s about giving the public a visible way to

No. Anyone can still report and call themselves a journalist or news source. It’s not about shutting people out — it’s about giving the public a visible way to know who’s operating ethically and who isn’t. Credibility is supposed to be earned, not expected. For underfunded or local journalists trying to build trust, this kind of framework could help them stand out—not disappear. Again, it’s voluntary, not a requirement. It doesn’t brand non-participants as unethical—it simply creates a record of ethical conduct and gives the public a tool to evaluate credibility. And if someone violates those standards, losing that recognition makes them accountable—not to the NEAA, but to the public.

PaulHoule 1y ago
There are lots of reasons for skepticism, I mean, Nixon thought journalists were unethical if they provided any analysis or context other than “reporting what the president said.” On top of that, if an organization is talking about bylaws many people conclude this organization isn’t for them.
- azaazal 1y ago
  You originally asked about exclusion (and I tried and think I did answer it), and I appreciate the follow-up. But NEAA doesn’t shut anyone out. It doesn’t regulate belief or speech—it gives the public a tool to see who has voluntarily agreed to ethical standards. Ethics, like fairness, are shaped by consensus and context. NEAA just formalizes that into something public, transparent, and usable. People can still decide for themselves who to trust. This just gives them a way to make that decision informed, not blind. And Nixon’s claim that criticism was unethical wasn’t about standards—it was about shielding power. NEAA isn’t about limiting scrutiny. It’s about making public who holds themselves to verifiable standards of transparency and integrity.

PaulHoule 1y ago

There are lots of reasons for skepticism, I mean, Nixon thought journalists were unethical if they provided any analysis or context other than “reporting what the president said.” On top of that, if an organization is talking about bylaws many people conclude this organization isn’t for them.

azaazal 1y ago
You originally asked about exclusion (and I tried and think I did answer it), and I appreciate the follow-up. But NEAA doesn’t shut anyone out. It doesn’t regulate belief or speech—it gives the public a tool to see who has voluntarily agreed to ethical standards. Ethics, like fairness, are shaped by consensus and context. NEAA just formalizes that into something public, transparent, and usable. People can still decide for themselves who to trust. This just gives them a way to make that decision informed, not blind. And Nixon’s claim that criticism was unethical wasn’t about standards—it was about shielding power. NEAA isn’t about limiting scrutiny. It’s about making public who holds themselves to verifiable standards of transparency and integrity.