[Retric]

Don’t put words in my mouth, I didn’t suggest government regulation of speech.

Though I will admit debate rules where each side gets equal time back to back to be somewhat humorous. That’s mostly my love of chaos and the spectacle of such an idea.

[rayiner]

Apologies, didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but that's how I interpreted the following:

dnissley: "Do you think the solution should come from the government? It seems implied here but just checking."

Retric: "Do you have any other options?"

[Retric]

Odd, I was initially thinking in terms of a non governmental organization to regulate the terms Reporter and News much like how Doctor is a protected. But, that doesn’t seem viable.

[rayiner]

The medical monopoly is more expansive than that. It regulates not just the use of the terms but the practice of medicine itself. And those rules are backed by the force of the government. If that’s what you’re suggesting for journalism, it’s even worse. It ultimately has the backing of government, but without the political accountability.

[Retric]

That’s one of many issues, however the peanut butter vs peanut spread line feels like a useful benchmark.

You could call your a current events organization and say anything or call yourself a News organization and be held to some standard. That IMO avoids limitations on free speech as the body of the message is what’s important not the label of such a method. As you say using government force to require organizations to change their name is distasteful.

However, coming up with a new term like whizphish that currently has no meaning but could gain meaning in this context should avoid stepping on any toes while achieving similar goals. LEED Platinum certified doesn’t directly have government backing, but a building falsely claiming such is simple fraud.