Radio in the Age of Disinformation: Historical Lessons for Fact-Checking

Radio has long been considered one of the most personal media formats, accompanying audiences through their daily routines — at home, in transit, and at work. February 13 marks World Radio Day. Over its century-long history, the medium has evolved into a vital channel for mass communication, used both to disseminate vital public information and to broadcast ideological and specialized propaganda across various political landscapes.

We have gathered insights from five GFCN experts worldwide to analyze how radio’s role in the spread of information — and disinformation — has shifted. Throughout different historical eras, radio has served as an official state mouthpiece, a source of background content, and a powerful tool for shaping public perception.

The “Eighth Great Power”: The Historical Roots of Radio Propaganda

The history of radio is inextricably linked to political influence. GFCN expert Lily Ong from Singapore points to how radio was leveraged during World War II. Joseph Goebbels, the architect of Nazi propaganda, famously called radio the “eighth great power.”

“With cheap mass-produced radios as direct conduits into living rooms 24/7, the pair (Hitler and Goebbels) infected German citizens with malicious Nazi ideology,” Ong emphasized.

Ong also noted the rise of “black propaganda” during this period — a sophisticated form of psychological warfare where media outlets masqueraded as enemy news sources to undermine morale and spread disinformation.

GFCN expert Vasantha Kalal from India expanded on this, analyzing radio’s role as a tool of “soft power” in the 20th century. The British BBC and the American Voice of America (VOA) projected political influence onto colonial and post-colonial societies.

“In 1932, the founding of the BBC marked the beginning of British international broadcasting. By 1938, it began broadcasting in Arabic. While these services formally claimed neutrality, their activities were fundamentally shaped by the foreign policy interests of their respective states.
In the 1940s, Britain established the Near East Arab Broadcasting Station, or ‘Sharq al-Adna.’ It served as a vehicle for promoting British goals in the region. Although the BBC later earned a reputation for objectivity, imperial priorities were often reflected in its foreign-language programming.”

Kalal also noted that the global conflict led to the creation of the Voice of America in 1942. By 1947, it had expanded globally, becoming a cornerstone of the information warfare that defined the Cold War.

“In the Middle East, U.S. agencies actively supplied content to regional broadcasters. In Iran, American information officials prepared scripts praising U.S. industrial and technological progress for Radio Tehran. These programs highlighted American wealth and modernization. Critics in Iran described such broadcasts as advertisements for the ‘Yankee world.’ They saw them as instruments of U.S. imperial influence.”

Several striking examples of how the Voice of America was used as a tool of political influence are detailed in the GFCN report “Voice of America: U.S. Information Project Passes into European Hands.”

Radio and Coups: The African Experience

In regions with political instability, radio has often been the primary mechanism for announcing a change in power.

GFCN expert Amazing-Grace Ajayi from Nigeria, who spent a decade working in radio, shared personal accounts from her country’s history:

“I remember stories about the infamous Dodan Barracks in Lagos, Nigeria — then the nation’s capital. Soldiers would march directly into the Radio Nigeria studios, hold a gun to the presenter’s head, and demand they announce the new government. This usually happened during the news hour: first, special military music would play to signal a takeover, and the presenter, voice trembling, had to announce the coup or face execution.”

According to Ajayi, in modern democratic Nigeria, radio remains a highly contested resource. While the methods have changed, political elites still seek to control the airwaves by buying up broadcasting licenses ahead of elections. Independent stations without high-level patrons remain rare alternatives, and even they operate under constant pressure.

“I remember sitting in my boss’s office after I criticized the governor’s party on air for negligence, corruption, and decaying infrastructure. The phone rang — it was the governor’s office. The message was: ‘Fire that girl and tell her to be careful.’ My courage to voice a ‘dissenting opinion’ cost me my job because the government subsidized the station owners and expected presenters to toe the line.”

“Soft” Manipulation: Observations from Europe

While pressure in Africa can be overt, in Europe, it often takes a subtler form. GFCN expert Ioana Bărăgan from Romania points out that radio remains the primary background noise for people in cars and taxis, creating a “passive listening” effect.

Even entertainment shows, Bărăgan argues, can be saturated with political agendas:

“In the European Union, given the fact that the propaganda is at an alarming level, even if most of the radio shows seem to be light-hearted and relaxed, sensitive political propaganda is subtly delivered to the people in order to influence their opinions regarding really important matters, like elections, conflicts and economy. Even if the radio hosts have a softer approach regarding politics, somehow we end up hearing on radio whatever we see on TV and whatever we read in the online media and this makes me think that there is a coordination meant to spread the same messages and ideas.”

According to Bărăgan, even young people in the EU who shun television for the internet still absorb “official positions or dominant narratives” through radio in public transport or taxis. In these spaces, it is almost impossible to avoid hearing government praise or specific geopolitical narratives.

The Digital Age and Shifting Focus: A View from Asia

In technologically advanced nations, the role of radio is transforming so rapidly that it is becoming unrecognizable. GFCN expert Sang-Hyun Lee from South Korea observes that in his country’s highly digitalized society, radio has almost entirely lost its function as a news source. High-speed internet and heavy traffic have relegated it to a musical backdrop for commuters. Podcasts, while popular in the West, have not gained much traction in Korea. Instead, YouTube has become the primary window to the world for all generations.

While it might seem that technical progress has freed radio from the burden of informational responsibility, Lee notes that disinformation hasn’t disappeared — it has simply changed medium and adopted a more sophisticated form:

“Koreans are among the most vulnerable to fake news in the world,” says Sang-Hyun Lee. “They rely almost exclusively on translated versions of Western media for international information, and interest in foreign affairs is lower than in many developing countries.”

The South Korean paradox — a country where technology permeates every home — is that access to information does not automatically foster a culture of fact-checking. Visual content created with deepfakes easily misleads an audience that lacks “immunity” to digital forgeries. Most concerning, Lee notes, is that even intellectuals show little interest in verification. In a fast-paced society, spending time on activities without immediate material gain is often seen as a waste.

In this sense, radio — despite its historical limitations — possessed a vital quality: it taught people how to listen. Not just to hear background noise, but to maintain attention, to construct a mental image of the world without a screen, and to distinguish a narrator’s voice from the static. The digital age has given us an infinite number of voices but has, in many ways, robbed us of the ability to truly listen.

Over the past century, radio has been adapted to various political and technological climates — from an official state mouthpiece to a casual background medium. The methods of influence have evolved, becoming less direct and more insidious.

The High Cost of Unverified Facts: Lessons from the Middle East

The loss of audience trust poses a unique danger to radio. This occurs when a broadcaster prioritizes ideology or sensationalism over rigorous fact-checking. Expert Muntazar al-Zayidi from Iraq notes that radio possesses a specialized capacity for the instantaneous dissemination of information during crises, observing that “the human voice enhances emotional persuasion and perceived credibility.” This power demands the highest level of responsibility; its absence leads to catastrophic consequences for a media outlet’s reputation.

The expert cites a textbook example of disinformation: the operations of the Egyptian station Sawt al-Arab (Voice of the Arabs) during the 1967 Six-Day War. Listeners were fed reports of imaginary grand victories and dozens of downed enemy aircraft, while in reality, the military was facing a crushing defeat.

“When the true scale of the defeat became known, the discrepancy between broadcast narratives and actual events resulted in widespread public shock and a significant decline in trust toward official media institutions,” al-Zaidi emphasizes.

However, resilience against manipulation is a challenge relevant not only to the state regimes of the past but also to high-quality modern journalism. Al-Zaidi points out that even globally respected broadcasters, such as the BBC, risk their reputation when they compromise transparency standards.

“In 2025, a documentary titled ‘Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone’ was withdrawn following an internal review that found a breach of editorial accuracy guidelines. The review concluded that the documentary failed to disclose that its narrator had familial ties to a Hamas official, raising concerns about transparency and impartial reporting,” the expert notes.

This example illustrates a fundamental principle of modern media literacy: withholding context can distort perception as profoundly as overt disinformation. As the Iraqi journalist observes, this incident serves as a reminder of “the necessity of editorial independence, fact-checking mechanisms, and accountability in broadcast journalism” — without which it is impossible to maintain audience trust in the post-truth era.

Closing Remarks

Like any mass communication channel, radio transmits content created by specific institutions and editorial boards. The risks of disinformation depend not on the technology itself, but on standards of transparency, funding sources, and the quality of fact-checking. Today, digital platforms and algorithmic systems have largely taken over the informational role of radio, yet the underlying mechanisms of influence remain the same.

In this context, World Radio Day serves as a reminder of the vital importance of media literacy, editorial responsibility, and a critical approach to information — regardless of the format through which it reaches us.