I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Once the Registry contract is deployed on the blockchain, it will continue to function and provide utility no matter what happens to the "Civil Media Company". No involvement on our part is needed to "recognize the voting power" as any individual, entity, or website can use the information contained in the registry however they want. A social media site, for example, could query the registry and decide to render a "credibility badge" when displaying links from a news organization that is whitelisted.
Happy to help clarify if you still have questions.
-- Nick Reynolds
Yes, the key word is "decide". To use your "credibility badge" example, an organization could ostensibly behave like they accurately respect the registry while also surreptitiously ignoring the registry in situations that suit them. You might say, "well those organizations will develop a reputation for dishonesty", which might be true if they get caught, but also isn't at all different from the status quo today where selective reporting and partisan bias are bemoaned loudly and often by every side regarding every issue.
Elsewhere you said
> We've further refined this idea by creating an independent non-profit body known as the Civil Council made up of well respected journalists and academics that can step in in situations where a vote was clearly motivated by political bias and not made in good faith.
Isn't this still centralisation? Either the Civil Council would not be necessary, in which case it's odd that you're setting it up, or it's still a centralised entity that has the final say and you might just as well skip the blockchain - or is my understanding incorrect/incomplete?
Decentralization is a spectrum, not a binary. While a centralized entity plays a part in the process, ultimate authority rests with the voters. The Council also has a plan to decentralize itself over time and voters will eventually be able to vote on removing or replacing the Council.