Dear TRS,
I have read your website and other alternative websites for many years and am confused why there is such a big fuss being made now about TRS in the mainstream media and other websites.
Singaporeans know that there is a lot of censorship in Singapore and "alternative" websites wouldn't even exist if there was no censorship. I am sure Singaporeans all understand this whether or not they support alternative media.
One of the issues which I keep seeing on social media is that there are people complaining about how TRS makes money through advertisements. I obviously don't know how much TRS makes but the reality is that it doesn't matter. Do Singaporeans think that SPH, MediaCorp or any other media outlet in the world doesn't make money from ads? I am sure they are making much more than TRS. Many times they also do so by being heavily bias and playing to a certain audience.
As far as I can remember, TRS has never asked Singaporeans for money or donations unlike some other alternative sites. People can't exactly complain that their money is misused. TRS just makes money from advertisers and companies that have big budgets to spend.
I also find it funny that other websites are criticising TRS for making "large amounts money off advertisements" when their own article which criticises TRS for doing so also carries advertisements. It looks like they are just bitter that they don't get as much traffic as TRS.
Personally, I do not blindly believe everything that is written. The same way people complain about "propaganda" in Mainstream media, the same is seen in alternative media. It is the responsibility of readers to read everything critically and with a pinch of salt and decide what they want to believe as truth. The reality is that alternative media wouldn't exist if mainstream media wasn't heavily bias and censored. This is why we have a media ranked 153 out of 180 in press freedom.
Another hypocritical thing I can't stand is that even the mainstream media has joined in the attack against TRS. In particular, TNP slammed TRS for sharing unverified news but in the same article, they quote unnamed sources to suggest that TRS editors were "bragging about their income". It is now also clear their entire report was based on the information on an anonymous online blog "exposing" TRS.
I have had a look at that blog. I don't know where the anonymous blogger got his information as he also fail to share any sources. The blog post appeared to simply post a series of photos and names and claimed that these were the people behind TRS. Much of the "expose" failed to actually explain any of the significant links. Despite these obvious flaws, the "information" shared by TNP in their report seems to have just been taken completely from this blog. How can TNP criticise TRS for posting unverified news when they did exactly the same thing in the exact same article?
Actually what I like most about alternative media in general is that comments are active meaning people can point out all these issues on the article itself and future readers will have the benefit of that extra information. When there are rubbish articles posted, there will surely be comments pointing out the flaws. It moderates itself.
For TRS, obviously there is a lot of negative attention on it but those sites criticising TRS also fail to see the good that it does. For example, I have seen local issues resolved thanks to TRS like a letter might published about someone's many failed attempts to appeal a situation with a rigid stat board or ministry. Then after publication of that complaint, I will sometimes see a follow-up article sharing that someone higher-up reached out to the person thanks to the publication of the article and action was finally taken.
I have seen the same results happening with municipal issues such as uncleared rubbish which was only cleared after TRS posted it. Usually readers complain that they had already given feedback on the issues and nothing was done until it became public. Would these people have had their problems fixed without TRS?
Ultimately it is up to readers to decide. There are of course negative issues when you have unregulated, online platforms but there are also many positives which critics will ultimately ignore. If you don't like TRS, don't follow them. I am sure they will still have followers who appreciate what they are trying to do.
Nothing is perfect in this world and I do expect that there will probably be some changes to how TRS does things after this incident but that is totally up to them and we as readers will decide whether we like it or not with our traffic. Just like people say "decide with your vote", if you don't like TRS, don't given them your traffic - problem solved!
Jen
TRS Reader