Moody's Ratings Downgrades United States Ratings to Aa1 from Aaa (moodys.com)

I’m not in journalism, but I care deeply about its role in a functioning democracy. I built this because no one else seemed willing to move beyond talk.

It’s a voluntary, nonpartisan structure for journalism ethics and accreditation—complete with a public manifesto and charter. I put it on Medium for everyone to see.

NEAA Manifesto: https://medium.com/@t3llingn0t/the-neaa-manifesto-bcee088ee3bb NEAA Charter: https://medium.com/@t3llingn0t/the-neaa-charter-full-text-417659f54b9a

Not a campaign. Not a brand. Just structure—freely offered, no strings attached.

Comments (6)

1659447091 · 1h ago

>Built a journalism ethics framework because no one else would

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard...

azaazal · 57m ago

You’re right—journalism ethics do exist. That’s not the issue.

The issue is there’s no public-facing structure that shows who’s committed to them, or holds anyone visibly accountable when they’re violated. The NEAA framework proposes a way to make those standards transparent and enforceable—while also allowing them to evolve through a consensus-based, open process.

It’s not rewriting journalism ethics. It’s giving them structure, consequence, and public utility.

But you're also right to point out the phrasing. I didn’t mean I created a new set of journalism ethics. What I developed is a structural framework for making existing ethical standards visible and enforceable — voluntarily and publicly.

PaulHoule · 6h ago

So places that are news deserts will have to remain news deserts if people don't sign up for this?

azaazal · 4h ago

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 · 4h 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 · 4h 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.