Communication and Media

Article Review

Godulla et al. (2021) begin by defining deepfakes as AI generated synthetic media capable of manipulating visual or auditory content. They stress that while deepfakes can have creative applications in entertainment and education, much of the discourse highlights risks, particularly in disinformation, journalism, and pornography. Their systematic review reveals that deepfake research is dominated by law and computer science, focusing primarily on technological detection methods and legal frameworks . By contrast, only a handful of studies come from communication and media research, which is concerning given the societal implications of manipulated media.

The article outlines key risks: erosion of trust in media, challenges for journalists in verifying sources, threats to democratic discourse via political disinformation, and violations of privacy through non-consensual pornographic deepfakes . It also identifies opportunities, such as potential uses in education, commercial sectors, and digital storytelling. Finally, the authors derive implications for communication studies. They emphasize the importance of investigating user awareness and media literacy, the dissemination processes of deepfakes across networks, and their impact on institutional trust, political participation, and journalism practices.

Analysis and Critique

Strengths

One of the article’s main strengths lies in its comprehensive interdisciplinary synthesis. By mapping research from computer science, law, and communication, the authors provide a broad yet organized overview of the field. Their categorization of risks and opportunities offers a clear framework for future research. Additionally, the article makes an important contribution by foregrounding the communication studies perspective, highlighting the relative scarcity of empirical work in this field. This gap analysis is crucial, as the societal impact of deepfakes depends less on technology alone and more on how audiences perceive, interpret, and act upon manipulated media. The article also excels in drawing connections between deepfakes and ongoing debates on disinformation and fake news, situating the phenomenon within broader media and political communication contexts . This positioning enhances its relevance and timeliness.

Weaknesses

Despite these strengths, the article has several limitations. First, while it identifies gaps, it does not provide detailed methodological recommendations for communication scholars. For instance, although it stresses the need for studying audience perceptions, it does not propose specific experimental or ethnographic approaches to achieve this. Second, the literature review, though systematic, remains descriptive rather than analytical. The article summarizes existing studies but offers limited critical engagement with their quality, scope, or contradictions. This restricts its usefulness for scholars seeking to design more rigorous research. Third, the focus remains Euro-American-centric, reflecting the dominance of English-language literature. Yet deepfake phenomena and their political and cultural implications are global, and future research would benefit from incorporating perspectives from the Global South.

Synthesis

Connecting this article to broader communication research, it becomes clear that deepfakes sit at the intersection of media trust, disinformation, and digital literacy. Studies on fake news show that audience susceptibility is shaped by political identity, media habits, and social networks. Similarly, the authors’ call for attention to algorithmic literacy underscores the need for research on how individuals critically engage with AI-driven media environments. The article also resonates with current discussions on AI in journalism, where automation poses both opportunities for efficiency and risks of undermining credibility. Deepfakes intensify these challenges, making this a fertile area for future scholarship.

Conclusion

Godulla et al. (2021) provide a valuable overview of the emerging field of deepfake research, highlighting risks, opportunities, and gaps with particular implications for communication studies. Their work is commendable for its interdisciplinary scope and timely relevance, especially in identifying the societal and democratic challenges posed by synthetic media. However, the article would benefit from stronger methodological direction and a more critical evaluation of existing studies. As deepfake technology evolves rapidly, communication scholars must go beyond identifying risks to empirically test how deepfakes affect media trust, political behavior, and everyday digital literacy. Overal, the article underscores the urgent need for communication research to keep pace with technological innovation. Its significance lies not only in diagnosing risks but also in inspiring constructive and critical engagement with the cultural, political, and social implications of deepfakes. Future research should explore comparative, cross-cultural, and longitudinal studies that can deepen our understanding of how societies adapt to an era where seeing is no longer believing.