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.

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.