SG Talk

Singapore’s mainstream media: More trusted than followed online

https://theindependent.sg/singapores-mai...ed-online/

The article from The Independent Singapore, titled "Singapore’s mainstream media: More trusted than followed online," draws on the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025 to discuss trust and consumption patterns of news in Singapore. It highlights that mainstream media outlets like The Straits Times (ST) and Channel NewsAsia (CNA) are highly trusted but less followed online compared to digital-native platforms like Mothership. Below, I analyze potential flaws and contradictions in the article, based on its content, the provided web results, and critical examination.

### Flaws in the Article

1. **Lack of Depth in Explaining Trust vs. Usage Discrepancy**:
   - The article notes that mainstream media (e.g., ST at 75% trust, CNA at 74%) are more trusted than digital-native outlets like Mothership (53% trust) but less followed online (CNA at 47%, Mothership at 46%, ST at 41%). It fails to explore *why* this discrepancy exists. For instance, it does not discuss factors like content style (e.g., Mothership’s bite-sized, viral content appealing to younger audiences), accessibility, or user engagement strategies. This omission leaves readers with an incomplete understanding of the dynamics driving online consumption patterns.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p.../singapore)

2. **Limited Contextualization of Trust Metrics**:
   - The article cites trust scores (e.g., ST at 75%, CNA at 74%) but does not clarify the methodology behind these figures, such as sample size (2,014 respondents in Singapore) or how trust was measured. It also notes that alternative outlets rank lower in trust partly due to their "limited track record and emphasis on viral news" but does not elaborate on whether this is a fair assessment or if other factors (e.g., regulatory scrutiny or audience bias) influence trust perceptions. This lack of context risks oversimplifying the trust landscape.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...and-report)

3. **Overemphasis on Mainstream Media’s Trustworthiness**:
   - The article emphasizes the high trust in mainstream media without critically addressing potential reasons for skepticism, such as their close ties to the government. For example, SPH Media Trust (publisher of ST) receives significant government funding (S$900 million over five years), and Mediacorp is state-owned through Temasek. These affiliations could raise questions about editorial independence, which the article does not explore, potentially presenting a one-sided view.[](https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac...._Singapore)

4. **Vague Reference to “Growing Challenge” from Digital-Native Media**:
   - The article mentions that mainstream media face a “growing challenge” from digital-native outlets like Mothership but does not specify what this challenge entails (e.g., competition for audience attention, revenue, or credibility). This vagueness reduces the article’s analytical value and fails to engage with the broader media landscape’s evolution.[](https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac..../singapore)

5. **Neglect of Regulatory Impact**:
   - The article does not mention Singapore’s strict media regulations, such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which disproportionately affect independent and social media platforms. These regulations could explain why mainstream media are trusted (due to perceived reliability under government oversight) but less followed online (where audiences seek less regulated content). This omission limits the article’s ability to contextualize the trust-usage gap.[](https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac..../singapore)

### Contradictions in the Article

1. **Trust vs. Consumption Paradox Without Resolution**:
   - The article’s central claim is that mainstream media are more trusted but less followed online than digital-native outlets. This presents an apparent contradiction: if mainstream media are highly trusted, why do they lag in online readership? The article does not attempt to reconcile this, such as by exploring whether trust in mainstream media is passive (e.g., due to brand familiarity) while online engagement favors platforms offering more dynamic or less filtered content. This leaves the paradox unaddressed.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...and-report)

2. **Implied Neutrality vs. Potential Bias in Mainstream Media**:
   - The article implies that mainstream media’s high trust scores reflect their quality and reliability. However, it does not acknowledge criticisms of mainstream media’s pro-government bias, as noted in sources like Wikipedia and Quora, where ST editors are described as aligning with the government’s line. This creates a contradiction between the article’s portrayal of mainstream media as trustworthy and the reality of their perceived lack of independence, which could undermine trust among some audiences.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media...ream-media)

3. **Trust Stability vs. Declining Traditional Media Use**:
   - The article states that trust in news has remained stable (45% in 2025, up from 42% in 2017) while noting a significant decline in traditional media consumption (TV and print). This creates a tension: if trust in mainstream media remains high, why are their traditional platforms losing audiences? The article does not explore whether this reflects a shift in how trust is expressed (e.g., trusting mainstream media for verification but not daily consumption) or if other factors, like digital convenience, drive the trend.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p.../singapore)

### Additional Critical Observations

- **Potential Bias in Source Selection**: The article relies heavily on the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025, which is reputable but may reflect a mainstream perspective. It does not incorporate alternative viewpoints, such as those from independent media or social media discussions (e.g., Reddit critiques of Mothership’s low-effort content or ST’s government alignment), which could provide a more balanced analysis.[](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comme...a_outlets/)

- **Missed Opportunity to Discuss Media Freedom**: The article avoids discussing Singapore’s low ranking on the Press Freedom Index (129 in 2023), which could contextualize why mainstream media are trusted (due to regulatory control) but less followed online (where audiences seek freer voices). This omission aligns with a broader tendency to avoid critiquing the media environment.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore)

- **Lack of Engagement with Audience Behavior**: The article notes that 38% of respondents check trusted news outlets to verify information, but it does not explore why audiences might prefer digital-native platforms for daily consumption. For example, Mothership’s appeal to younger audiences through viral content is mentioned but not analyzed in depth, missing a chance to discuss generational shifts in media consumption.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...and-report)

### Conclusion

The article’s primary flaws lie in its lack of depth, failure to address regulatory and bias-related factors, and omission of critical perspectives on mainstream media’s trustworthiness. Its contradictions stem from presenting mainstream media as highly trusted without reconciling their declining online readership or acknowledging potential biases due to government ties. To improve, the article could have explored the reasons behind the trust-usage gap, incorporated criticisms of mainstream media, and discussed the impact of Singapore’s regulatory environment on media dynamics. For a fuller picture, readers might consult the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025 directly or explore discussions on platforms like Reddit for alternative viewpoints.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...a_outlets/)

If you’d like me to dig deeper into specific aspects or analyze related sources further, let me know!

Alright, let’s dial up the skepticism and tear into the article from *The Independent Singapore* titled “Singapore’s mainstream media: More trusted than followed online” with a sharper lens. The piece leans on the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025 to claim that Singapore’s mainstream media (e.g., The Straits Times, Channel NewsAsia) are highly trusted but less followed online compared to digital-native outlets like Mothership. Below, I’ll dig into deeper flaws, contradictions, and questionable aspects, assuming nothing at face value and poking holes where the article might be shaky, biased, or conveniently selective.

### Flaws in the Article (Skeptical Lens)

1. **Cherry-Picked Data or Convenient Framing?**
   - The article touts trust scores (e.g., 75% for The Straits Times, 74% for CNA, 53% for Mothership) but doesn’t question the Reuters Institute’s methodology. How were these 2,014 respondents selected? Was the sample skewed toward older, establishment-friendly demographics who might naturally trust state-aligned media? The article doesn’t probe whether these trust figures reflect genuine public sentiment or a conditioned response in a tightly controlled media environment. Without this scrutiny, the numbers feel like a convenient prop to paint mainstream media as inherently superior.

2. **Ignoring the Elephant: Government Control**
   - The article sidesteps Singapore’s media landscape, where mainstream outlets like ST (under SPH Media Trust, funded with S$900 million by the government) and CNA (owned by state-linked Mediacorp) operate under heavy state influence. In a country ranked 129th on the 2023 Press Freedom Index, high trust in these outlets could reflect government endorsement rather than editorial excellence. The article’s failure to mention this smells like a deliberate omission to avoid rocking the boat or challenging the narrative of mainstream media’s “trustworthiness.”

3. **Dismissing Digital-Native Media with a Smirk**
   - The article attributes Mothership’s lower trust (53%) to its “limited track record and emphasis on viral news,” which feels like a smug jab. Why not question whether Mothership’s appeal (46% online readership, nearly matching CNA’s 47%) reflects a public craving for less sanitized, more relatable content? The article doesn’t entertain the idea that mainstream media’s high trust might be hollow—perhaps a default perception rather than earned credibility. This one-sided framing dismisses digital-native outlets as frivolous without evidence.

4. **No Hard Numbers on Consumption Trends**
   - The article vaguely claims mainstream media are “less followed online” (e.g., ST at 41%, CNA at 47%) but doesn’t quantify the gap or trend over time. Are these figures declining? Stagnant? How do they compare to print or TV consumption, which the article admits is dropping? Without longitudinal data or specifics, the claim feels like a hand-wavy assertion meant to sound insightful but lacking substance. A skeptical reader might wonder if the article is hiding inconvenient truths, like a sharper decline in mainstream media’s relevance.

5. **Regulatory Blind Spot**
   - Singapore’s media is governed by laws like POFMA, which give the government broad powers to correct “falsehoods,” often targeting independent or social media platforms. The article doesn’t consider how this regulatory hammer might inflate trust in mainstream media (seen as “safe” or state-approved) while suppressing digital-native outlets’ credibility. This omission is glaring—either the article is clueless about the media ecosystem or it’s conveniently ignoring a factor that could flip its narrative.

6. **Trust as a Loaded Term**
   - The article treats “trust” as an unambiguous good without questioning what it means. Do Singaporeans trust ST and CNA because they deliver accurate news, or because they’re familiar brands backed by the state? In a society where dissent is rare and media alternatives are limited, high trust could signal conformity rather than quality. The article’s uncritical acceptance of trust metrics feels naive—or worse, complicit in propping up the status quo.

### Contradictions in the Article (Skeptical Lens)

1. **Trust vs. Engagement: A Logical Disconnect**
   - The article’s core hook—mainstream media are trusted but less followed online—is presented as a quirky fact, but it’s a screaming contradiction. If ST and CNA are so trusted, why aren’t Singaporeans flocking to their websites or apps? The article doesn’t entertain the possibility that trust is superficial (e.g., a nod to brand recognition) while actual engagement gravitates toward outlets like Mothership, which might feel more authentic or less filtered. This unresolved tension suggests the article is either oblivious or dodging a deeper truth: trust doesn’t equal relevance.

2. **Stable Trust vs. Shifting Habits**
   - The article claims trust in news is stable (45% in 2025, up from 42% in 2017) but admits traditional media (TV, print) are losing ground. If mainstream media are the backbone of this trust, how does their declining consumption not dent that trust? The article doesn’t square this circle, leaving a contradiction: either trust is decoupled from actual media use (making it a meaningless metric), or the article is glossing over a decline in mainstream media’s influence that undermines its rosy trust narrative.

3. **Mainstream Media as Neutral vs. State-Aligned**
   - The article implies ST and CNA are trusted for their journalistic rigor, but it never addresses their well-documented ties to the government. Critics on platforms like Quora and Reddit often call ST a mouthpiece for the People’s Action Party, and Mediacorp’s state ownership is no secret. By framing these outlets as neutrally trustworthy, the article contradicts the reality of their structural bias, which could make their high trust scores less about quality and more about state-backed legitimacy.

4. **Digital-Native “Challenge” vs. Mainstream Dominance**
   - The article vaguely warns of a “growing challenge” from digital-native media but simultaneously emphasizes mainstream media’s trust dominance. This feels like having it both ways: mainstream media are untouchable (high trust) but somehow threatened by upstarts like Mothership. If digital-native outlets are gaining traction (e.g., Mothership’s 46% readership), why isn’t their trust rising faster? The article doesn’t clarify this, creating a muddled narrative that exaggerates the threat while reinforcing mainstream media’s superiority.

### Skeptical Hot Takes

- **Is the Article a Mainstream Media Love Letter?** *The Independent Singapore* claims to be independent, but its uncritical reliance on Reuters’ data and lack of skepticism toward ST and CNA make it feel like a backdoor cheerleader for the establishment. Why no mention of Singapore’s press freedom issues or POFMA’s chilling effect? Maybe it’s not as “independent” as it claims.

- **Trust as a Red Herring**: The article’s focus on trust distracts from the real story: mainstream media are losing ground online because they’re less agile, less engaging, or too tied to the state. Mothership’s near-parity in readership (46% vs. CNA’s 47%) suggests audiences want alternatives, but the article buries this under trust scores.

- **Reuters Report as Gospel?** The article treats the Reuters Institute’s findings as unassailable truth. But who funds Reuters? Who sets their survey parameters? In a global media landscape where even “neutral” institutions have agendas, the article’s blind faith in these numbers is suspect.

- **What’s Mothership Doing Right?** The article sneers at Mothership’s “viral news” but doesn’t ask why it’s pulling nearly as many readers as CNA. Maybe Singaporeans are tired of ST’s staid editorials or CNA’s polished scripts. The article’s refusal to explore this feels like it’s protecting mainstream media’s ego.

### Cross-Checking with Context

- **Web Insights**: Sources like Wikipedia note ST’s government-friendly stance, and Quora threads criticize its lack of editorial independence. The article ignores these perspectives, which could explain why trust in ST doesn’t translate to online readership—people might trust it as “official” but seek freer voices elsewhere.

- **Regulatory Reality**: POFMA’s impact on independent media (e.g., corrections issued to The Online Citizen) could suppress their trust scores while bolstering mainstream media’s perceived reliability. The article’s silence on this is deafening.

- **Audience Behavior**: Reddit discussions (e.g., r/singapore) often highlight Mothership’s appeal to younger audiences for its snappy, meme-friendly content. The article’s dismissal of digital-native media as “viral” ignores this generational shift, which could explain the readership gap.

### Conclusion (Skeptical Edition)

This article is a masterclass in selective storytelling. It waves shiny trust numbers from the Reuters Institute to prop up mainstream media while downplaying their declining online relevance and ignoring their state ties. Contradictions—like high trust but low engagement, or stable trust amid shrinking traditional media use—go unresolved, suggesting either sloppy analysis or a deliberate spin. The snub of digital-native media’s appeal and the regulatory chokehold on Singapore’s media landscape make the article feel less like journalism and more like a press release for ST and CNA. For the real scoop, skip this piece and check the Reuters report yourself, or better yet, lurk on Reddit or X to see what Singaporeans actually think about their news.

If you want me to go even harder on this—maybe dig into *The Independent Singapore*’s own biases, cross-check X posts for public sentiment, or dissect the Reuters report’s fine print—let me know!

The article from *The Independent Singapore* claims mainstream media like The Straits Times (75% trust) and Channel NewsAsia (74%) are more trusted but less followed online than digital-native outlets like Mothership (46% readership). Key flaws include ignoring government ties, POFMA’s regulatory impact, and public skepticism on X and Reddit. Contradictions arise from unresolved trust-engagement gaps and stable trust despite declining traditional media use. *The Independent*’s uncritical stance and omission of press freedom issues suggest bias. Conclusion: The article is establishment-friendly, selectively using Reuters’ data to prop up mainstream media while downplaying digital alternatives and Singapore’s controlled media landscape.

Need some advice why usual suspects and shills don't trust it nao and still SCARED and HUMJI to update latest mRNA jabs lololololol 🤣

So fast u turn positive and trusted