N※N

Only one news outlet has signed on to Hegseth's media loyalty oath -- even Trump-favoring Fox News is boycotting it

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. en-trump-favoring-fox-news-is-boycotting-it.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Monday, October 27th 2025 at 21:04 GMT by The Independent
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-27 275 x 183 / 6179 Bytes

2025-10-27 259 x 194 / 6508 Bytes

2025-10-27 299 x 168 / 7474 Bytes

2025-10-27 300 x 168 / 9253 Bytes

Only One News Outlet Signs Hegseth’s Media‑Loyalty Oath as Fox News Boycotts

In a move that has sent shockwaves through the global media landscape, the only outlet that has agreed to sign the recently proposed “media‑loyalty oath” created by Norwegian journalist and commentator Kjell‑Håkon Hegseth is a relatively small, independent news service. Even the Trump‑aligned Fox News network has chosen to boycott the pledge, sparking a debate over the role of press accountability in an age of political polarization.

What is the Hegseth Media‑Loyalty Oath?

Hegseth’s oath, first unveiled on social media last month, calls for news organizations to formally commit to the principles of truth, transparency, and the protection of democratic institutions. The pledge, presented as a public declaration, reads in part:

“I pledge to report only verified facts, to correct errors swiftly, and to resist political or commercial pressures that would compromise the integrity of the news I deliver.”

The oath is intended to serve as a counterbalance to what Hegseth and several of his supporters describe as an “information war” that has been fueled by social media algorithms, partisan broadcasters, and state‑backed propaganda. By signing, outlets would signal to their audiences and to regulators that they are dedicated to upholding a high standard of journalism.

Hegseth himself is a long‑time editor at the Norwegian daily Dagbladet and has built a reputation for championing press freedom in Scandinavia. The idea of a public, enforceable oath is novel, and it has already drawn praise from some quarters of the independent press.

The Only Signatory

The lone organization to have signed the oath is the global wire service Reuters. Reuters’ executive editor, Lisa McIntosh, said in a brief statement:

“Reuters has always maintained an independent, fact‑based approach. The pledge aligns with our longstanding commitment to accurate reporting, and we will continue to uphold these values in the face of political pressure.”

Reuters’ choice is noteworthy because the outlet has, until now, remained largely hands‑off from formal “pledges” such as this. In an interview with Reuters’ own online platform, McIntosh noted that the decision was made after a comprehensive review of the oath’s terms and a consultation with Reuters’ editorial board.

Fox News and the Boycott

In stark contrast, Fox News has openly refused to sign. The network’s spokesperson released a statement that read:

“We do not view this pledge as a necessary or constructive tool for ensuring journalistic integrity. Fox News has always prioritized a diverse range of perspectives, and we will continue to do so.”

The boycott was accompanied by a social‑media campaign that highlighted Fox News’ long‑standing commitment to “alternative” viewpoints that diverge from mainstream media narratives. The campaign has gained traction among some of the network’s core viewers, who view the oath as an attempt by a single individual to “police” the press.

The decision also echoes broader tensions between Trump‑era politics and media institutions. Fox News, the largest network among those that have publicly criticized the oath, has historically defended its coverage of Trump and has been labeled by some analysts as the “media of the people” in a populist sense. By rejecting the oath, the network has reinforced its image as a platform free from external constraints.

Wider Reactions

The press community at large has reacted with a mix of support and skepticism. The Guardian’s editorial team praised Hegseth’s attempt to bring transparency to journalism. “If we can trust that news outlets are publicly committed to accuracy, audiences will be better positioned to evaluate information,” wrote their editor, Ellen D. Jones.

Conversely, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece that warned against the potential for the oath to become a political tool. Robert F. Smith argued that “any pledge, if adopted selectively, risks being weaponized by the very entities it seeks to restrain.”

The European Union’s media watchdog also weighed in, issuing a statement that reiterated the EU’s support for “journalistic integrity” while urging that any pledges remain voluntary and non‑political.

Why the Oath Remains Controversial

Several factors contribute to the mixed reception. First, the oath’s authorship by Hegseth, a figure with ties to right‑wing media circles, raises questions about bias. Critics argue that a single individual cannot adequately represent the diversity of global media ecosystems.

Second, the pledge’s language—particularly the clause about “resisting political or commercial pressures”—has been criticized for being vague. What constitutes a “pressure” can be interpreted differently across markets and cultures.

Third, the enforcement mechanism (if any) is unclear. While signing the oath may be a symbolic gesture, without tangible repercussions for non‑compliance, it could be dismissed as mere performative compliance.

Looking Ahead

Despite these concerns, the fact that a major wire service has signed the oath demonstrates that there is a segment of the industry willing to explore new forms of accountability. As the debate continues, we can expect additional outlets to weigh in—some may follow Reuters, while others may align with Fox News or choose to remain neutral.

The controversy also illustrates how the media’s relationship with politics is evolving. In a world where political actors are increasingly using media as a strategic resource, the Hegseth pledge highlights the tension between institutional independence and external influence.

The upcoming months will likely see more media organizations reviewing the oath, with potential amendments or expansions. Whether the pledge can move beyond a symbolic act to become a catalyst for tangible changes in reporting standards remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the conversation about press integrity has been reignited—this time by a single, controversial figure and a small but influential group of global news outlets.