Governments have long used radio to change minds beyond their borders. Take World War II, when Germany made broadcasts to Britain: William Joyce - nicknamed Lord Haw-Haw by the listening public - provided the German account of news, 'predicting' which towns would be the target of an air raid that night. Joyce was not German but, as a former member of the British Union of Fascists, he sympathised with them, leaving London for Berlin a week before war in 1939. He was on the air there within weeks.

It was all guesswork and propaganda, but the programmes resonated with the British public, exploiting a desire for information from the frontlines. Many listened - almost as many as listened to the BBC News. Some believed him, and found him endearing. Many wanted another perspective of wartime engagements, while others saw it as light entertainment - a welcome alternative to the dull and serious programmes broadcast domestically. Joyce's familiar accent must have helped here, even if he sounded condescending to some, getting German narratives into homes that would have switched off a German voice.

It's perhaps less well known that Britain did the same: the BBC's broadcasts to occupied Europe were listened to by citizens, and both Allied and Axis soldiers alike, earning acknowledgement from Hitler's propaganda minister that the broadcasts had changed minds there. Apart from countering German propaganda on the continent, the broadcasts boosted morale among those living under occupation and inspired acts of civil resistance. The BBC's broadcasts to forces in Europe, intended for light background listening in barracks and mess rooms, were also listened to in British homes for the same reason.

But, unlike its German counterpart, the BBC was independent, and fought to maintain its independence even before war broke out. The BBC wanted to report events truthfully and accurately, while the Government wanted to avoid revealing more information than it had to. Eventually, a compromise was agreed: the BBC would be allowed to report bad news as well as good, but could not reveal precise information that German forces could use to gauge the success of their attacks.

Shortwave Today

These wartime stories show that using the media to change minds isn't just reserved for 'the enemy' - we can't agree on what is good and bad, for one - it's essential to counter misinformation as well. Today, the Internet has emerged as a much more capable, accessible, convincing and impactful medium for both of those purposes, but radio - specifically, shortwave - endures.

China is one of the biggest users of shortwave on the air today. Its state-owned media company, CGTN, operates a network of stations - China Radio International, or CGTN Radio - broadcasting in dozens of languages across the world. It has made use of mediumwave too, allegedly masquerading as - and leasing airtime on - independent stations.

Its TV channel was taken off the air in the UK after regulator Ofcom ruled that it was not sufficiently independent from the Chinese state, but that doesn't stop its programming being seen here. It returned using a streaming portal, which aren't currently regulated like linear broadcasts.

Its radio network sidesteps regulation by covering the globe with transmissions based largely within China itself. Despite the distance, they can be heard clearly here in Europe by bouncing signals off the ionosphere, allowing China to reach audiences across the world with a network located almost entirely within its own borders. The BBC, similarly, broadcast over the Iron Curtain through the Cold War.

There could be dozens of frequencies active at any one time, consuming thousands of kilowatts of power, broadcasting programming in languages including English, French, Spanish, German and Italian, as well as less-spoken ones such as Lao, Hausa, Esperanto, Khmer and Sinhala.

What's the point?

Soft power is no less important now the Internet exists, but is such a vast and expensive radio operation the best way of earning it?

The BBC's modern-day broadcasts, known as the BBC World Service, are a shadow of the operation that grew nine-fold during WWII. The German service closed in 1999, followed by ten more - including eight European languages - in 2005. Romanian followed in 2008, before six languages' broadcasts were halted - and five more closed outright - in 2011. Ten more - including Chinese - were cut in 2022.

If they're so important, then why close them?

One reason is cost. China's network uses 500 kilowatts of power to broadcast programming on one frequency, in one language, to Europe, using as much energy in five and a half hours as the average household does in a year. Maintenance inflates this cost further, and shortwave receivers seem to be only increasing in price.

The main reason, however, is that shortwave is old technology. Far fewer people will be listening: the sound fades and crackles with static, and unlike their modern, domestic counterparts, stations tend not to stay on the same frequency all day. And the solution to the audio problem - DRM - exacerbates the cost problem further still.

The alternative - the Internet - reaches more people, provides a better quality service, and enables the delivery of other forms of media such as text and video. This is simply a better value proposition for public broadcasters like the BBC, who can now reach populations of people rather than the patchy geographies restricted by the limits of broadcast radio.

Influence operations have, therefore, moved on - and everyone's playing the game, with social media campaigns promoting Chinese, Russian and American interests alike. You can reach the world on social media, while most have never heard of a shortwave radio.

But, while online services have filled gaps for well-connected communities and countries, they are much more easily blocked - and these blocks much more risky to evade - than a radio broadcast, which could be the only independent voice the most isolated and vulnerable communities can hear.

CGTN Radio

While the BBC scales back its shortwave network, China retains theirs - but do they really deploy it to influence us?

Stories of CGTN removing shots of maskless fans from a Zero-Covid-era World Cup broadcast; using subsidiaries and local names to disguise their involvement in seemingly independent stations; and being beholden to the CCP's "Propaganda Department", portraying both country and party positively, would suggest so.

Chinese officials, on the other hand, will say it's a good-faith attempt to promote Chinese culture on the international stage, and shake off their image as "the evil empire that some Western media portray [them] to be": simply "self-protection". Who you believe, of course, is up to you.

Avoiding Critique

Whatever influence it does have - whether nefarious or virtuous - is achieved by a schedule of podcasts and speech shows, broadcasting 24/7 but repeating throughout the day for listeners in different time zones.

Broadly, CGTN manages China's image by avoiding critique of it and the Chinese government, instead touting their diplomatic credentials, or technological and scientific advances.

According to the Reuters report, if they can't ignore something that discredits them, they'll ignore any details that implicate them: for example, by acknowledging a protest in Hong Kong, but not what had prompted it - or mentioning the breach of US Government workers' personal information, but not that it was believed China was responsible.

In my experience, that's not a universal rule. I remember hearing an unexpectedly honest acknowledgement, shortly after China ended its Zero-Covid policy, comments that the move was quick, or sudden. Since then, in contrast, I've heard references to this time focus more on the speed with which the economy recovered and people began living like normal again.

The Bridge

One of the shows broadcast on the station is The Bridge, which claims it aims to forge ties between the East and West by exploring both Chinese and American culture. It, like Joyce's broadcasts on German radio, is hosted with a familiar Western accent, extending a feeling of impartiality and companionship, and a belief that they're tackling real issues and are on your side.

It's broadcast at 3am, 7am, 3pm and 8pm UTC, as per an old edition of this guide which contained a schedule. The updated version has dropped this, although the 3pm and 8pm broadcasts seem to still be correct.

Part of its strategy is that they actually are real issues. I tune in occasionally out of interest. One episode - possibly from 1 February 2023 - was targeted towards young Americans working in the tech sector, recently characterised by huge waves of redundancies. What should you do if you want to advance your career, but the job market doesn't allow it?

Just move to China! And, if it doesn't work out, you can just move back again. No big deal.

In having this discussion, The Bridge presents China as:

• an integral part of the tech sector;
• an ideal career move;
• somewhere that provides opportunity for Americans frustrated by their job market; and
• somewhere they can fit in culturally, claiming that the big cities like Beijing are beginning to exhibit a more Western culture than they did before.

This isn't all false: for better or for worse, no-one could dispute China's place in the tech sector, and cities like Beijing and Shanghai may well be good places for a foreigner to settle in, given how many global companies have bases there.

But as a career move? It might work - I'm sure, for many people, it has. And, while moving across the world is an extreme, the prospect of looking to towns or cities further afield for opportunities you can't find locally isn't one to be written off. It's not inconceivable that the discussion offered in this episode had a genuinely positive impact, leading someone to an opportunity they wouldn't have had otherwise (even if it wasn't one in China).

But the use of the show to paint China in a good light - and, in some cases, America in a bad one - is overt once you see it, and evident in more than just this one discussion.

Alternatively, it could be an example of confirmation bias - perhaps I'd see genuine, unbiased discussion if I looked for it. You can always tune in and judge for yourself!

The first CGTN broadcast I heard was The Bridge discussing the poor state of American infrastructure - specifically, bridges. Once again, there's an element of validity: one bridge in California remained open after degrading beyond the point where it got funding for replacement, and another remained open to vehicles weighing up to 26 tons when it could only handle ones weighing 3. It stands to reason that something should have been done before then.

I was fascinated: both by the idea of receiving a radio signal from so far away, as well as by the show itself. It's an American voice discussing American infrastructure, a topic I had remembered coming up before elsewhere: designed, if not to promote trust in China, then to invoke distrust in whoever the listener ends up blaming.

In practice, looking at the episode list, this means discussing "China's democratic process" (6 March 2023) as well as American train derailments (17 February 2023). As I write this - on 29 August 2024 - the hosts are discussing China's green power credentials. Again, there's an element of truth - although reliant on coal, their share of green energy sources is increasing - but the praise serves a greater purpose.

Surely that episode on the US jobs market isn't intended to get people to actually move to China? No-one would do that from a single podcast episode. It might inspire someone to consider the idea, but the likelihood of someone following that process through to completion, moving there, is so tiny I don't see that being the purpose of the episode.

Instead, it ignores Western reporting on China's threats to minorities and Western infrastructure, presenting it as a friendly, prosperous and rapidly-evolving nation: one that reflects both Chinese traditions and Western values like democracy at the same time; one that is steeped in history and prestige, but also cutting-edge and high-tech.

What is this for?

This image - whether true or not - could frame how listeners view China when they see it mentioned elsewhere in Western media or culture.

Having studied Cyber Security - learning about scams, social engineering and research skills - I know not to implicitly trust everything I see and hear. And, having read about China's poking around in critical infrastructure, and their use of competitions and laws to find useful vulnerabilities in Western products (and harmful ones in its own), it's easier for me to ignore this image and guess what CGTN's true intentions are. I view China in other contexts - even events like the Olympics - with this in mind, so you can see how it might be valuable to make a more positive image the default.

Of course, I don't know what their true intentions are: you can use persuasive techniques regardless of whether you're telling the truth or lying, and cyberespionage is no one-way street. When the records of 22 million employees of US federal agencies were stolen and the CIA forced to withdraw some officers from China to protect them, officials declined to publicly blame China - despite being confident they were responsible - fearing revealing their own capabilities, and quietly accepting they'd do the same given the opportunity. They've even surveilled their own allies.

But, for the same reasons that drive conspiracy theories, their messaging may be more effective than you think. A friendly-sounding voice, and plausible explanation of something complicated, could help explain why this show might win some listeners over.

1. Humans want to seek patterns and find explanations.

This was recently borne out amid the lack of information surrounding Kate Middleton's health. Conspiracy theories flourished - and reached their peak when a heavily-edited photo of her was released on Mother's Day.

2. Humans want to confirm their existing beliefs, even if the evidence points against them.

Everyone is vulnerable to this: even pilots. In this example, they looked for cues in the environment that matched the cues they expected to see in a normal situation. Their instruments reinforced their belief they had seen the runway through heavy snow, despite clues they hadn't.

An impartial observer with more time and less pressure might figure this out easily, but the situation - and an unconscious desire to confirm what they believed to be true - made the difference between accepting reality, and trying to land the plane regardless.

3. Social media algorithms create a feedback loop, reinforcing your beliefs by showing you only posts you agree with.

This itself might be true, but it's unclear if it meaningfully impacts beliefs.

A 2020 study found that 50.4% of the median American Facebook user's feed was comprised of sources leaning the same way as them politically, compared to 14.7% against.

Although it's often believed this creates a feedback loop, leading to political beliefs becoming more extreme, the study found no notable connection to political attitudes.

However, social media does have very real impacts: conspiracy theories have thrived on Twitter following the Southport stabbings in part due to engagement-based recommendation algorithms, prompting prople to take part in riots who might not have otherwise.

Regardless of efficacy, the intent is the same: where a seemingly knowledgeable figure could sell a conspiracy theory to an unknowing social media user, the same could be true of state media, especially given that TV and radio rate higher for trust than social platforms.

4. Distrust in institutions, and theories attempting to pin down their 'true' intentions, can fuel conspiracies.

Legitimate controversies including the contaminated blood scandal and the unlawful Post Office prosecutions could invoke distrust in the institutions responsible: that is understandable, and it's vital for democracy and accountability that questions can be asked of those with power.

In contrast, malicious actors could exaggerate the scale of real issues to invoke distrust where it wouldn't have been present otherwise. One example of this is The Bridge's discussion on American infrastructure: the issue itself is legitimate, but the reasons driving it might not be fairly explained. Is it malicious, political, or the simple reality of the cost of roads and suburbia?

Finally, distrust could be induced using fabricated theories designed to exploit a lack of understanding. Recently, the 15-minute city concept has been accused of limiting freedoms and increasing the cost of travel, when in fact it would achieve the opposite, increasing patronage at local businesses. Spanish cities are implementing the concept via "superblocks", but with urban design almost universally favouring the car, and public discourse excusing its unchecked privilege and risks, it's no surprise that the prospect it can be done differently here seems increasingly alien.

5. Conspiracy theories can provoke an emotional response that reinforces your belief of it.

Stepping back from conspiracy theories, newspapers can invoke an emotional response (rather than a more considered one) by employing bold colours, a visually busy design, capitalised headlines and appeals directly to the concerns or fears of the reader - telling them exactly how to respond to a story.

This is especially stark around election time, when papers across both sides of the political divide explicitly lobby readers on who to vote for.

These endorsements carry such weight that the new Prime Minister may have shelved plans to complete an inquiry into press conduct in order to secure one.

Tabloids tend to appeal to emotion to a much greater extent than broadsheets, which typically present information more factually, and may leave readers more open to challenging viewpoints or evidence. Of course, that does not make them immune to bias, and may in reality make it more difficult to spot.

The use of these techniques means that, according to a poll, 25% of the UK public believe that the Covid-19 pandemic was probably or definitely a hoax; and only 26% are confident that 15-minute cities aren't a plot to control the public. That's bad, and it signals that people might be more vulnerable to these voices than you might initially think.

Then again, while studies have identified state-backed influence operations, they don't always identify a link between them and a shift in beliefs and opinions, so there's no guarantee that these techniques can be applied at population-scale with any notable effect.

That said, it wouldn't take much success: after over 120 million votes were cast, Trump won the 2016 US election thanks to just 79,646 votes in three states.

Regardless, I still don't believe that Bridge episode on job prospects was intended to make people move to China - it's not that explicit.

It invokes positivity towards China implicitly through anecdotes, stories, and promises of something better than the status quo. On the surface level, meanwhile, is what appears to be a good-faith discussion on advancing your career, earning your trust by taking your side.

I asked an AI chatbot for those five points listed above. I supplemented them with my own knowledge and some sources. In case that has led to some unconscious confirmation bias, here is a transcript of my conversation so you can check it for yourself - I used Anthropic's Claude 3 Haiku model via DuckDuckGo Chat on 25 May 2024.

Who is this for?

Online, I don't see The Bridge in the podcast charts. CGTN's podcast channel isn't performing well on YouTube. It doesn't seem to have become any meaningful part of the public conscience. Shortwave, meanwhile, is simply a worse experience than domestic broadcasts, and most wouldn't know it even exists.

So who's listening?

Of course, I don't have any data to back this up, and I haven't done any research to figure this out, but I do have some ideas.

1. Maybe it's intended to serve languages and communities underserved by other global broadcasters?

Positioning CGTN as the only international media outlet in a given location or language could be a tempting goal for China, becoming the only portal to the world for those without Internet access. There is undoubtedly value in controlling the tint of that lens.

This idea seems less convincing when you consider that you need a shortwave radio to listen. These are reasonably expensive here: even if they are cheaper in Asia and Africa, I'd guess they are likely to be a larger proportion of someone's income, and - despite the value in having knowledge otherwise unattainable - not worth taking food off the table for.

2. Instead, might these broadcasts be aimed at Chinese citizens who have left China, with the intent to keep them within the orbit of Chinese media?

It would help balance Western investigations and media narratives, instead discussing it in a more positive light. Since Chinese citizens who left on good terms are likely to have some level of loyalty - since they grew up there, and are likely to view their time there fondly - it could induce some level of doubt over which perspective is closer to reality.

This doubt could be reinforced by high-profile individuals, or enabled by tech leaders such as Elon Musk, who commented that Twitter must be "careful" in how it discussed China.

3. Or maybe it's to help connect embassies and their diplomats, and local politicians, to Chinese media?

This is less relevant today now we have the Internet, a much more effective, reliable and adaptable medium for facilitating communication and access to news.

Considering embassies, while shortwave radio is used for two-way communication between embassies and their host countries, it might also be used how we use radio domestically: to inform and entertain. CGTN programming could be a popular source of familiar news, music and entertainment among diplomats while they're serving overseas. Today, British forces get similar treatment from BFBS, which even provide TV services via satellite.

Considering politics, Chinese programming began being broadcast on one formerly local American station when it increased its transmission power to reach Washington D.C. - including the Chinese Embassy, White House and Capitol. This being effective would require lawmakers there to tune in: however, since China's involvement in the station's output wasn't made clear, commuters - including Government workers - may have been listening to Chinese-controlled media every day for years, believing the station was still local.

Regardless of their true intent, hearing these broadcasts is a useful way for us to gain an insight into the perspectives and narratives that Chinese citizens are being exposed to via their domestic media, and to understand how China wants them to see the world.

How you can listen

Being more privacy-aware than most, I prefer to consume live broadcast media - be it radio or TV - over the air wherever I can. There's simply no tangible benefit in the broadcaster profiling what I'm watching, or trying to target ads at me. Unfortunately, traditional broadcast TV won't last forever, with closure currently set for 2034. Here's hoping 5G Broadcast takes off before then.

It's for this same reason that I'd really prefer not to buy smart TVs, and listen to CGTN Radio on the radio: I don't want them to know I'm listening!

Shortwave sets are expensive now and - unless you're an enthusiast - you probably don't have one. Luckily, you don't need one: the University of Twente in the Netherlands operates a software-defined radio, which they make available to access online for free.

Regardless of whether you're using your own receiver, or a web one, there are a number of utilities and resources to help you find which frequencies to tune to.

Unlike domestic broadcasts, shortwave broadcasts typically move around the band, sometimes on an hourly basis, which means there's usually no one frequency for each station. CGTN is one of those stations.

Short-wave.info provides information on frequencies, transmission locations, power, direction, and - optionally - estimated quality. You might find ShortwaveDB useful as well, but I haven't tried it.

Using Short-wave.info's estimated quality function requires setting a location. The location you set by dragging the pin is stored, and associated with your current IP address, indefinitely on the server side with no opportunity to delete it. See Bearing and Distance on this page for a description of how this works.

Alternatively, the British DX Club have produced a downloadable PDF of broadcasts from Asia, and they have versions for broadcasts elsewhere available here too.

Assuming you're in Europe, the best way to tune in that I've found is the 8pm UTC broadcasts on 9600kHz and 11770kHz, seemingly dependent on the time of year.

If you want to listen online instead, you should be able to find the podcast version of The Bridge online - here is an archive of the feed. There might be a livestream somewhere too, but for the reasons I mentioned above I'm not especially interested in finding it.

Conclusion

For most of the time this post sat unpublished, it ended with a simple warning: whether state-backed or not, listen with a critical ear, and don't blindly believe (or discount) what you hear. That warning still stands, although not because these broadcasts are Chinese.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "propaganda" as "the systematic dissemination of information, especially in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a particular cause or point of view". Something doesn't need to lie to be propaganda: it simply needs to mislead, perhaps by omission, to further a set way of thinking. And don't forget the systematic: in this context, that might mean it's regular and reliable, part of a wider effort to influence, and made to reach people en-masse.

A former Voice of America correspondent argues that, since it is funded by, and its remit controlled by, the state, it cannot be truly independent of the state. But, similarly to Britain's BBC, it operates under a charter mandating objective and comprehensive reporting, and although many try, few could make a convincing argument that it is propaganda. Simply being state-funded is no conclusive indicator of reliability.

And even if you could correlate funding and propaganda, most Westerners would be reluctant to call it that, for the exact same reason most Chinese wouldn't with CGTN: it's patriotic, a global voice for their nation that promotes the values they subscribe to.

You could argue that by lying through omission, declining to critique their Government where warranted, CGTN constitutes propaganda. Perhaps Voice of America would've sounded similar had I listened, given its questionable insulation from political string-pulling. In the end, both exist to promote their nation's values and address those that run counter to them - so maybe what CGTN is doing is not so alien after all.

That said, you still shouldn't believe them.

Related on the Internet

Politics

• Army Talk: Facsism: an informational sheet created by the United States War Department shortly before the end of war in 1945 on what fascism is and how it presents itself.
• Propaganda Techniques Explained: common manipulation techniques, explained quickly.

China

• China's crackdown on Uyghurs reaches the Arctic: Chinese citizens abroad who speak out about their treatment in the re-education system are routinely contacted by officials threatening their family's safety back home.
• Surviving China's Uyghur Camps: Uyghurs living in exile receive calls from Chinese authorities pushing them to return to China - where they face arrest.
• Secrets & Power: China in the UK: a documentary discussing China's influence on UK communities and institutions.
• China's 'tainted' cotton: an investigation into forced labour in the cotton supply chain.
• Hong Kong's China Problem: a look at what's changed in Hong Kong since its return to China in 1997.

Europe

• German Reunification: What still divides East and West?: a look at the political and economic divides that still stand where the Iron Curtain did before it fell.
• How to write plays in Ukraine during wartime: one playwright describes Ukraine's process of decolonisation from the Soviet Union as "not yet finished".

Wartime Broadcasting

• Closedown: how London's new TV service was suddenly switched off when the war broke out. The single transmitter would have guided enemy aircraft directly to the capital.
• Censorship and propaganda: these transmitters were later used to disrupt German navigation systems.
• Television returns: services resumed six years later, with the final cartoon showed before switch-off, and the orchestra scheduled to play later that day.
• Back after the break: few will have watched the re-launch of TV services. Only 20,000 TV sets existed before the war, and the extent of bombing of London - the only place that had TV services at all - would have made this number smaller still.
• Timeline of the BBC Television Service
• History of Services at Droitwich: one of the sites used by the BBC to broadcast to Europe during the Second World War, and still in use today.
• History of 648kHz, which was used by the BBC between 1982 and 2011 to broadcast across Northern Europe from the British coast.