Katie Dowling
Media Transformations
BA Television
December 2010
The interwar period in Britain has been variously described as
‘The Age of Anxiety’ and ‘The Morbid Age’. To what extent can
we say that the mass media in that period contributed towards
this public mood? Draw on specific examples to support your
argument.
In this essay, I will firstly look at the historical context in which the interwar
period occurred, taking into account the political, social and economic relevance of
events at the time, and why the period in question was referred to as the ‘age of
anxiety’. I will look at the influence of radio and how its’ popularity grew, and the
influence of newspapers and the press on public mood and opinion, focussing on the
Daily Mail. Finally I will look at media theorists, and consider the extent to which the
mass media contributed towards over public mood.
The interwar years refer to the period between the end of the First World War
(1918) and the beginning of the Second World War (1939). It has been referred to as
the ‘age of anxiety’, the ‘morbid age’ and Britain itself being in a ‘culture of crisis’.
Britain was struggling to recover after the war, with over 900,000 military casualties
and 292,000 civilian deaths (White, 2010). Although joyful that the war was over, the
majority of the British public lived in a near-constant state of fear: of economic
failure, of political instability, of another world war, of communist or fascist invasion,
of the unknown. The war had been a severe economic cost, resulting in a post-war
recession, and a debt exacerbated by the Wall Street Crash in 1929. Inflation had
more than doubled between 1914 and 1920, and the value of the pound sterling had
fallen by 61.2%. In 1925, the government made the decision to return to gold
standard, meaning that the value of the pound was tied to the amount of gold in
Britain. This was one factor leading to the Great Economic Depression of the 1930s,
which in turn lead to mass unemployment, peaking at 2.5 million in 1933.
The coalition government fragmented after the resignation of Liberal Prime
Minister David Lloyd George in 1922, leading to constant alternation between a
Labour and Tory rule until a national government was established in 1932 (Overy,
2009, p. xviii). Following the depression of the 1930s, Parliament was divided over
recovery measures. This split in power and uncertainty of economic recovery
contributed to the overall mood of doubt and insecurity.
There were several external influences that should be taken into account
when analysing the age of anxiety, such as the political and economic turmoil in
Germany. The numerous scientific advancements of the 1920s and 30s regarding
time and space showed how the world was becoming more curious, more intelligent,
and more informed, but also provided more reason for anxiety: particularly notable
are Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in 1916, the solar eclipse in 1919, and Heisenberg’s
Theory of Uncertainty in 1927. There was a nationwide sense of wonder and
utopianism, though the pure volume of information also resulted in a crisis of
Katie Dowling
Media Transformations
BA Television
December 2010
abundance. There was a sense that the world was changing, and an underlying theme
of the annihilation of time and space. The British public were being educated through
pamphlets, books, meetings and lectures to which anyone could attend: Richard
Overy notes how the crisis of culture was ‘made possible by freedom to express fears
openly and the competition to identify its causes’ (Overy, 2009, p. 381). One such
identification noted by Ernest Jones was that psychoanalysis, the popularity of which
was growing and becoming more accepted as a feasible branch of science and
medicine, explained the ‘nature of consciousness, and could identify the apparent
source of collective anxiety but not be able to cure it’ (Overy, 2009, p. 373). British
society was hungry for knowledge: perhaps the answers to the certainty of the
economical, political and social state of the country lay in the waves of new
information. It is crucial to understand the context in which Britain found itself, as
this laid the foundations for which the media built upon.
The radio had become a well-established form of media by the interwar
period. It was received with mixed reactions at first: some were uncomfortable with
the messages spoken by seemingly disembodied voices floating freely to be picked up
by anyone, some even thinking that radios enabled communication with the dead
following the revival of spiritualism during the war. But it was received by many as a
positive thing, as it brought the nation together peacefully as a united global
community of listeners. It dealt with the problem of illiteracy, as listeners did not
have to rely on reading newspapers to find out the news. During the 1930s, the 1200%
increase in homes with electricity meant that radios could be installed in the home,
making listening a family experience, and a pleasant one compared to, for example,
Leninist Russia in the 1920s, where loudspeakers had been installed to broadcast
messages i.e. the listeners had no choice. The fact that it was down to the individual to
purchase and listen to the radio reflected the democracy Britain was enjoying,
compared to Germany or Russia. The interest, Overy notes, was voluntary, and so the
public were ‘more predisposed to influence’ (Overy, 2009, p. 381). They would trust an
authoritative voice such as a news reader,
The development and popularity of radio helped ease the media into
becoming a part of daily life, for entertainment, news and information. With the BBC
becoming a national institution in 1922, all the regional stations were combined into
a centralized organization. This supports the notion of unity, of people being united
in their listening to a variety of programmes, but also encompasses a sense of
dominance – there was no other choice but to listen to the BBC and the information
they chose to broadcast. They knew they had such a powerful tool in their hands, so
how did the public know they were not abusing it, and using it to their advantage? As,
for example, Hitler did in Nazi Germany. Britain was ‘experienced’ in the art of
propaganda following the First World War, so surely they would recognise biased or
influential material? Or had they become desensitized? Perhaps the first and mildest
example was the introduction of advertising, mainly for financial benefits. It was
criticised by Secretary for Commerce Herbert Hoover, future President of the United
States, when he declared it was “inconceivable that we should allow so great a
possibility for service and for news and for entertainment and education, for vital
commercial purposes to be drowned in advertising chatter” (Briggs & Burke, 2002, p.
162). Perhaps Hoover was aware of the influence radio had, and how many thousands
Katie Dowling
Media Transformations
BA Television
December 2010
of people its’ message reached. This is indicative of the radio contributing to public
opinion, and as the listeners would absorb the information being broadcast, it was
directly contributing to the mood of the time.
One example of a radio broadcast being the source of mass panic is explored
in Joanna Bourke’s ‘Fear: A Cultural History’. Broadcast from the Barricades was a
satirical play written by Father Ronald Knox, and was transmitted by the BBC on 16 th
November 1926. It took the form of a news broadcast telling listeners of an
unemployed mob in Trafalgar Square that proceeded to storm the National Gallery,
roast a man alive, demolish the Houses of Parliament, and blow up the Savoy Hotel,
amongst other violent acts (Bourke, 2006, pp. 168-76). Despite an initial statement
informing listeners that the play was in fact humorous and fictional, many members
of the public thought it was a genuine broadcast, and it led to mass panic. Local
police stations and the BBC’s regional centres were contacted by people seeking
reassurance, and the Savoy Hotel was even contacted by people asking whether their
bookings should be cancelled. Bourke suggests this widespread panic and anxiety was
partly due to the public ‘interpreting coincidences in a way that confirmed pre-held
fears’. She gives the example of the late arrival of Sunday papers the next day being
interpreted as confirmation of the situation in London the night before, whereas it
was in fact due to copious amounts of snow: people subconsciously let the underlying
fear in the public mind sway their interpretation of innocent events. The BBC was
forced to make a public apology, despite the numerous clues in the broadcast that
indicated satire. Bourke suggests that the public reaction was down to the ‘economic,
social and political tensions pervading 1920s Britain, in addition to the peculiarly
believable nature of radio’ (Bourke, 2006, p. 172). The fact that the unemployment
rate was high and rising, and a relevant issue on the minds of the lower and middle
class, meant that people were more likely to accept that a mob would be formed of
such a large number of people, and an angry one even more so. The hysteria also lay
in the fact that the medium of radio itself was considered especially reliable: what
reason would the public have for not believing a news broadcast by the BBC?
Technological advancements at the beginning of the twentieth century meant
that newspapers were becoming easier to mass produce and distribute. They were part
of the growing ‘mass’ media, as opposed to just being aimed at the elite. During the
interwar period, British national newspapers became part of everyday life and read by
the majority of the population. By the 1930s, it was estimated that around two thirds
of the population were reading a newspaper every day, and almost everyone saw a
Sunday paper (Bingham, 2005). There were concerns at the time that press-barons
Lords Northcliffe, Rothermere and Beaverbrook had too much power over the press
and the messages conveyed to the British public. They formed the basis of the
Amalgamated Press group, with titles including The Times, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror,
London Evening News, Daily Record and Sunday Pictorial. Beaverbrook secured the
controlling interest in The Daily Express, Sunday Express and The London Evening
Standard.
The Daily Mail was first published in 1896, and was an immediate success. It
targeted the newly literate lower-middle class market, aimed from the outset to have
no political allegiance and to provide entertainment as well as information. As a
result, policy organisation Political and Economic Planning (PEP) produced a detailed
Katie Dowling
Media Transformations
BA Television
December 2010
market survey in 1938 entitled Report on the British Press, where they claimed that
the new angle taken in newspapers such as the Daily Mail left readers “ill-informed
and unable to participate intelligently in political debate” (Bingham, 2005). The
report also claimed that accuracy in the newspaper was low.
Days before the 1924 general election, the Daily Mail published a supposed
letter from Communist leader Zinoviev to British communists, in which he urged
them to start a violent revolution. This was a significant factor that contributed
towards the defeat of the Labour Party as it was a bid to discredit them: the letter was
a forgery, but this did not stop frightening thousands of middle-class readers who
believed it, and feared Communist invasion and revolution. These people were
influenced directly by the paper, and made them determined to oppose the demands
of the workers (who laid the foundations for the 1926 General Strike). Despite the
intention to have no political allegiance, the newspaper tended to be pro-Tory,
making very public their opponent Stanley Baldwin, leader of the Conservative Party.
Journalist George Ward Price repeatedly wrote how Beaverbrook should replace
Baldwin. In 1930, Lords Rothermere and Beaverbrook launched the United Empire
Party, which the Mail supported enthusiastically. This was clearly influenced by the
barons themselves, and blatantly going against the original intention to remain
politically impartial. Considering that the UEP defeated the Conservative candidate in
the by-election in 1930, it can only be assumed that the mass-readership of the Daily
Mail were influenced by its’ promotion of the party, thus securing their votes.
Undoubtedly, the political stance of the Daily Mail was influenced somewhat
by Rothermere’s friendship with and support of both Hitler and Mussolini. He played
on Britain’s fear of Communism together with the Nazi Party’s apparent resistance to
its threats, when he published an article in 1933 entitled ‘Youth Triumphant’, which
was later employed for Nazi propaganda purposes (Giles, 2006, p. 201). In further
support to his apparently fascist allegiance, Rothermere was editorially sympathetic
to Oswald Mosely, founder of the British Union of Fascists. The Mail also published
an article in 1934 entitled ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts!’ referring to the Italian fascist
paramilitary group.
It is clear that press barons such as those mentioned recognised the
influencing potential that the press had during the interwar period. People felt
vulnerable and insecure, and were easily swayed. If they read in the newspaper that
they should fear Communists, then they would. Bingham also notes that the press
barons rose to power at a time where there were few alternative sources of political
information. He notes the 1920s press was “strong enough to ensure that restrictions
were placed upon what the new medium of BBC radio broadcasting could provide in
the way of news”. Newspapers such as the Mail saw that the primary purpose of radio
was to inform (i.e. the news), thus the decision to incorporate entertainment and
stories of the layman, for a wider appeal and therefore more people to influence.
Film, art and theatre pieces produced during the interwar period reflected the
theme of the annihilation of time and space. Portraying moving images of events that
occurred in a different time and different space was new and exciting to the public,
but also confusing and unnerving. Growing freedom of expression enabled the
production of more experimental pieces, such as the stop-motion ‘Explosion of a
motor-car’ in 1900, and post-impressionist art trends such as Dadaism or surrealism
from the likes of Cezanne, Matisse and Picasso. Combined with scientific revelations,
Katie Dowling
Media Transformations
BA Television
December 2010
such as the introduction of x-rays, genealogy, and time-space relativity, it was
apparent that these new ideas were changing the way the world was seen.
Cinema newsreels were less useful than newspapers or radio broadcasts as a
source of information or instruction for the public, but in a pre-television age it
successfully brought audiences regularly and directly face-to-face with worldwide
issues and crises. Perhaps also people would be more likely to be influenced
subconsciously by a piece of art or a film, as they are not aware of a message being
directly portrayed to them as a target, as is the assumption with the press.
It is undeniable that the mass media has, to some extent, influence over public
opinion, more so at a time when the public frame of mind is easily manipulated. But
where does one draw the line between information and propaganda? David Welch
notes that propaganda is ‘concerned with reinforcing existing trends and beliefs; to
sharpen and focus them’ (Welch, 1983, p. 2). Assuming the press is perceived as a
(mild) form of propaganda, in that it is the minority (i.e. the newspaper and
journalistic team) portraying their views to the majority (i.e. the readers), do the press
simply reinforce the public mood or opinion of the time, or do they create it? The
relationship between people’s consumption of the mass media and their resulting
behaviour is undefined, and studies are generally inconclusive. Media theorist David
Gauntlett proposed that this is either down to the studies being wrongly approached,
or there being no relationship at all and so nothing to be concluded: perhaps the mass
media is not as influential as most seem to think. This can also be applied to the mass
media’s influence during the interwar period; perhaps incidents such as the forged
pro-Communist letter published by the Daily Mail simply exacerbated the fear of
Communist invasion and revolution, playing on the existing anxiety of the British
public.
The intelligence of the public as a consumer of media should not be
underestimated: it should not be assumed that because an audience is told something,
they will accept it. Bingham notes that even before market research surveys arrived in
the 1920s, producers of media such as radio broadcasts or newspapers “sought to
discover what the public wanted” (Bingham, 2004, p. 9). So in other words, if
promoting the fear and anxiety of factors such as impending war or economic failure
increased listening ratings and sold more newspapers, then that would be what was
published. Although Bingham goes on to say how the press during the interwar period
did not ‘wield an overwhelming power over its audience’, and newspapers of the time
cannot offer an ‘unproblematic guide to the attitudes of individuals’, he claims they
do remain ‘of immense historical value for the contribution they made to the public
and political discourse of the period’ (Bingham, 2004, p. 12).
Richard Overy suggests that the public opinion during the ‘morbid age’ was in
part down to the mass media, but was also a result of scientific advancements and the
conclusions drawn about society from these. People would acknowledge notions that
science ‘proved’ and the media then supported, leading to their acceptance of them.
For example, the fear of impending war that was promoted by news broadcasts or
newspaper articles was almost definitely influenced by ideas such as Bertrand
Russell’s notion that science seemed to ‘lessen human power by suggesting human
nature is pre-determined’, and that ‘the idea of war was a scientific problem which in
turn suggested a powerful biological or psychological predisposition to violence, but
no real solution’ (Overy, 2009, p. 373). So essentially, humans could do nothing
about their violent instincts, and so should accept the idea of war being an
Katie Dowling
Media Transformations
BA Television
December 2010
inescapable necessity. Although there was much support for anti-war causes in the
form of committees, societies and associations, the public came to believe, Overy goes
on to say, that ‘civilization could be saved only by war’ (Overy, 2009, p. 383). This in
turn was based on the notion that the reform of social institutions and the
transformation of capitalism could only be achieved once the major threat to
civilization had been overcome – Hitler and fascism. So in other words, war was a
necessity, which was probably why people feared it even more.
To conclude, I think that the mass media were mainly responsible for the
public mood during the interwar period. Radio was such an intrusive medium that is
difficult to see how it did not influence people to a certain extent. It should be
considered, however, that the public’s intelligence should not be underestimated, and
that they would not merely absorb all the information and opinions they were
exposed to: people could make up their own minds.
Katie Dowling
Media Transformations
BA Television
December 2010
Bibliography
Adrian Bingham (May 2005). Monitoring the popular press: a historical perspective. [Online].
Available from <http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-27.html#echoes>
[accessed 12th December 2010].
Bingham, A., (2004). Gender, modernity and the popular press in interwar Britain. 1st ed.
Oxford University Press. (p. 9).
Bourke, J., (2006). Fear: A Cultural History. London: Virago. (pp. 168-76).
Briggs, A. and Burke, P., (2002). A social history of the media: from Gutenberg to the internet.
Cambridge: Polity Press. (p. 162).
Welch, D., (1983). Nazi Propaganda. 1st ed. Barnes & Noble Books. (p 2).
Giles, P., (2006). Atlantic Republic: the American tradition in English literature. 1st ed. Oxford
University Press. (p. 201).
Overy, R., (2009). The Morbid Age. 1st ed. Penguin Books.
Matthew White (November 2010). Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth
Century Hemoclysm [online]. Available from <http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm>
[accessed 8th December 2010].