A European affair - a comparison of 1950's Dutch and German television

Master's Thesis, 1995
120 Pages, Grade: A-




1. Introduction
1.1. Approach
1.2. A description of the audience in the 1950's
1.3. Description of the mass medium

2. A short prehistory of television in Germany and the Netherlands
2.1. The same idea at different locations
2.2. The development of the electric apparatus
2.3. First public demonstrations in Germany
2.4. The emergence of German television
2.5. Programming until 1945 in Germany
2.6. No distribution of television
2.7. Television test in the Netherlands
2.8. Conclusions

3. The 1950's in the Netherlands
3.1. The post-war period in the Netherlands
3.2. The pillarisation
3.3. Introducing television to an audience
3.3.1. The test program of Philips in Eindhoven
3.3.2. Missing concepts for a new medium
3.3.3. The NTS - a Dutch democratic principle
3.3.4. Conclusion to Introducing television to an audience
3.4. The medium as a social institution
3.4.1. Television among other Luxus
3.4.2. Cinema and radio as rivals
3.4.3. The political perspective
3.4.4. The commercial perspective
3.4.5. Conclusion to the medium as a social institution
3.5. Looking for the audience
3.5.1. The ideal of a future audience
3.5.2. The media audience in the 1950's
3.5.3. Programming in the 1950's
3.5.4. The people in front of the camera
3.5.5. Television critics
3.5.6. Reactions of the audience
3.5.7. Research on the audience
3.5.8. Conclusions to looking for the audience
3.6. Conclusion

4. West German television in the 1950's
4.1. The post-war period in Germany
4.2. Federalism
4.3. Introducing television to an audience
4.3.1. The test program of the NWDR in Hamburg
4.3.2. Missing concepts for a new medium
4.3.3. ARD
4.3.4. Conclusions to Introducing television to an audience
4.4. The medium as a social institution
4.4.1. Television among other luxuries
4.4.2. Other media as rivals
4.4.3. The political perspective
4.4.4. The commercial perspective
4.4.5. Conclusion to the medium as a social institution
4.5. Looking for the audience
4.5.1. The ideal of a future audience
4.5.2. The media audience in the 1950's
4.5.3. Programming in the 1950's
4.5.4. The people in front of the camera
4.5.5. Television critics
4.5.6. Reactions of the audience
4.5.7. Research on the audience
4.5.8. Conclusions to looking for the audience
4.6. Conclusion



Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1. Introduction

In the last two decades, especially after the development of cable- and satellite television, research and theory put its attention on the television medium. Television immensely influenced the everyday life of the public but it was hardly explored by science. When the first researchers began their enterprise in discovering the secrets and unknown of the television universe they had to find that there were basic questions neither asked nor answered because of the lack of an adequate perspective on the subject. So, interested and motivated scientists from film-, literary-, communication- and cultural studies began research. This is reflected in the differences in these scientific disciplines as in the approaches to television nowadays. To define the medium as a 'cultural form' is a very broad term, that makes it again difficult to give it a certain definition. Television is seemingly an abstract and complex medium, that is on the other hand within easy reach, because almost everybody has his/her television set at home.

One approach to characterise television is, to do so by its audience. Television is, as any other medium strongly dependent on the audience that makes it - irrespective of any other aspect - a mass medium. Many scientists see this approach as the most important at all:

"..., broadcasting does not exist to serve governments, business, or any other abstract entities; it exists to serve listeners and viewers."[1]

In this perspective the medium television exists, because it is accepted by a large number of people, who support it. If it had not gained this status it would not have become the most important technological phenomenon of the 20th century. It is surprising that most of the research concerning television was around the subjects of law, economics and organisation. All this research did deal with the fact that television had already attracted a lot of people and they also took it for granted, that television has and will always attract people. They all forgot to ask questions like: Why people in the beginning of television broadcasting were all that curious to watch it? How did television manage to attract so many people, or why was there such a large number of people who made television the most important medium of our times, and what would have happened if television had not been that successful?

In consequence only a small amount of research has been done on this subject of the history of television. One of the first problems television had to face was how to gain its own audience. In the first years after its introduction television managed to attract more and more people. It became an important part of society. As a result laws and rules were introduced and industry became interested to use it for its own purpose. So television is strongly dependent on its audience. The audience played a major role in the 1950's when television was introduced in the German and Dutch society.

There are only a few historiographic concepts on how to approach the history of television. Knut Hickethier proposes a model which was worked out by Lutz Hachmeister[2]. In my opinion it is probably one of the best so far. He divides the history of television into four periods:

Phase 1: First there was an idea about new technology; but technological facilities and products were not sufficient to build a working machine. Even the use of the new machines was not clear. This period is called the 'speculative period'.

Phase 2: The development of television brought many problems. It is the period of inventors who worked on the progress of their systems. It is the period of introduction.

Phase 3: The experiences of phase 2 are used in phase 3. Television became established as a new medium. It was presented in publicity in a certain form to attract a certain kind of people. A regular program and a system for the new medium were built. This period is the time of establishment.

Phase 4: This is the time when the new medium became accepted by society. Television turned out to be a mass medium.

This scheme shows how the new technology was introduced and it also keeps in mind the fact that the technology of television would mean nothing without the audience. Phase 3 is the most important, because it witnesses the development of the television system into a 'mass medium' by winning an audience. This phase did occur in the 1950's in Germany and the Netherlands. In both countries the basics of the future development of the new 'mass medium' were constituted at that time. Television was in its infancy and wanted to become as known as all the other established media. In both countries a discourse was going on about the future of the new television system, its dangers, advantages, use, structure and its program. Many ideas and expectations about its future shape, and which direction it should take, were discussed. Television was in the beginning of its career, open for new ideas, vulnerable, and kept a lot of opportunities that had to be discovered. lt was the time when television pioneers could reach national fame by presenting their programs.

How different the development of television could have been and has been in the first years of its existence! As Gerhard Eckert writes in 1958:

"Gewiß der durchschnittliche Fernsehzuschauer scheint sich damit abgefunden zu haben, daß das Fernsehen im Rahmen der Rundfunkanstalten aufgebaut worden ist. Er macht sich wenig Gedanken darüber, daß es vielleicht auch andere Möglichkeiten für eine Organisation des Fernsehens geben könnte."[3]

This statement shows that television did not develop by its own nature or by any given reason. Television was in the 1950's free to develop in every direction. In 1974 Raymond Williams states a similar idea, that describes the problem of the introduction of television in the perspective of social history:

"It is never quite true to say that in modern societies, when a social need has been demonstrated, its appropriate technology will be found. This is partly because some real needs, in any particular period, are beyond the scope of existing or foreseeable scientific and technical knowledge. It is even more because the key question, about technological response to a need, is less a question about the need itself than about its place in an existing social formation."[4]

Williams concludes:

"Thus, if seen only in hindsight, broadcasting can be diagnosed as a new and powerful form of social integration and control."[5]

Examples of how television could be integrated into society already existed. In the United States there was a commercial system established in 1939. It worked effectively. Of course, there was also, in Britain, a public broadcaster - the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). In Germany television had already been tested from 1935 to 1945. A lot of memories of this period of time were still present in the 1950's, because most of the people who were involved in pre-war television also had a powerful position in German post-war television[6]. In the Netherlands the society was strongly linked to the radio system by the system of 'pillarisation' (verzuiling). Most of the radio broadcasters became involved in the start of television, too. As a result the television system was organised like the radio system. Some people questioned this similarity. Many ideas were discussed and also forgotten.

In my research I want to discuss how the new medium of television was introduced and how it gained its audience in both countries in the first ten years. This shall lead me to my central question whether television developed differently in these countries and if so, whether it was influenced by examples that already existed like in the United States or Great Britain? In the end I hope to find an answer for the question, how the audience influenced the development of television?

1.1. Approach

After World War II. all countries which wanted to appear as modern and progressive had to support atomic energy and television. This thesis made by the head of the television commission of the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation), Henry Cassirer, shows that television was an international affair. For example, Yugoslavia began to build its own television system because of the pressure of the neighbour countries Italy, Austria and Hungaria which already had television. Also Switzerland began television because it wanted to appear as progressive as the other European countries.[7]

My approach to this comparative study of Germany and the Netherlands in the 1950's is limited. There are no direct relations between them. An exchange of programs or support mechanism between these countries did not exist during the 1950's, except by Eurovision and in the borderland region by overspill. However on the other hand both countries were one of the most developed television countries in Europe. In 1959 11% of all households in the Netherlands had a television set at home and in Germany 12 %.[8] So these neighbour countries were very interested in each others development after the war and there was always an observation of the neighbour country by the media. Also the technological knowledge and equipment was about the same. In consequence some ideas and developments were quite similar. But there were fundamental differences too, e.g. how to organise television.

Programs were provided by organisations that were quite different and ideas of how to integrate television into society and what task this technology should fulfil varied in many perspectives. Television developed differently in these two countries, because it was mainly dependent on social items. The development of television relied on economical, cultural, technical and political factors. However, on the other hand the television system was a part of the media and therefore it was a dominant, cultural and ideological force which had an important influence on the definition of social relations and political issues. Furthermore, differing geographical, economic and political contexts and institutional structures of television authorities meant that the content of television differs from country to country and that it is not broadcast or received in the same way. Therefore the audience bound into all these systems by society plays an 'passive' as well as an 'active' part in the development of the system. Focusing on the German perspective Cay Dietrich Voss writes in 1956:

"Eine Zeit war vergangen, die für die Entwicklung des Fernsehens vielleicht die wichtigste und entscheidenste gewesen ist; denn man hatte sich auf Versuchs- und Entdeckungs-fahrten für alles, was das Fernsehen betrifft, begeben. Dies galt sowohl für die Technik als auch für die Sendeformen. Damals hatte es noch so gut wie keine Zuschauer gegeben. Doch nun - im Januar 1953 - mußte das Fernsehen für die ersten Zuschauer und eine gestrenge Kritik seine Visitenkarte abgeben."[9]

Voss' statement supports the idea that especially the period of time of the introduction can be explained as something that did not develop by its own nature inherited by the system.

As a result a central aspect of such a comparative study is to show which factors were influencing the whole development in each country. A comparison can show the differences and similarities of television in Germany and the Netherlands at the time of its foundation. It shows that television is not a closed system in itself but a system that steadily develops in time and integrates into new media concepts and in new forms of its use by society.[10] Comparing these two countries can also show whether there was some other exchange between these neighbour countries beside an exchange of programs by Eurovision and overspill. So another central aspect of this study is to investigate whether there were beside national authorities, also international factors that influenced the television system in the Netherlands and Germany. Were there influences from the neighbour country which effected the development in the other? If so, would it mean that television did not develop only by national contexts but also by international authorities?

In this context television history of the 1950's is highly problematic. If the 'speculative period' is the 'prehistory' and the development of television to an electrical apparatus at the beginning of the 20th century the 'archaeology' of television history, the 1950's might be the 'Middle ages'. As in the history of medieval times there is also a problem in finding good and reliable sources. What are the sources which can be used for the purpose of writing history? Until 1957 the television program that was broadcast could not be recorded and is lost for ever. Even after 1957 the 'Telerecording'-system was just used occasionally. Therefore the exact content of the particular program is not known. Only films still exist. But they just represent a part of the whole programming. There is obviously a lack in primary sources. In consequence research has to rely on written documents of that time, which are provided by books, magazines, newspapers and program guides[11] and other written material concerning television. Most of this material I could find in the Dutch broadcasting museum in Hilversum and the Medienarchiv of the NDR in Hamburg. Besides that this study is strongly dependent on secondary sources.

Another problem is, that most of the well known theories about television might not fit the 1950's. These theories are concerned about television as a mass medium, and they do not mind the fact that television, in its first decade, was not a mass medium. Familiar terms like audience and mass medium have a different meaning in the 1950's[12]. For that reason these terms are described in two chapters. The descriptions follows a chapter about the prehistory of Dutch and German television in order to locate the 1950's in a historical context. In the main part of this study I will try to find out about the situation in the 1950's. This part is divided in two chapters, one about the Netherlands and another one about Germany. These parts are divided again in three sections. The first section provides a survey about the start and the strategy of introducing television. The second part is concerned about the situation of how television interacted with society, industry and other media. Finally the third chapter discusses the formation of the audience, how it got the first contact with and how it looked upon television. One of the central aspects is, who watched television and felt attracted by it?

In the end of this work I will finally conclude by trying to find differences and similarities by a comparison of the two countries and answers to my central questions.

1.2. A description of the audience in the 1950's

How different the situation in the 1950's was, gives a comparison with the present time. Television is nowadays accepted by a majority of people as a mass medium. Its structure and organisation and programming can be seen as something given and as a 'natural' part of everyday 'television life'. In the 1950's television was brand new and something special. Only a minority knew about the system. They were part of an elitist group - the television audience.

One of the major problems in television science, and all the research concerning television, is the definition of the audience. In the past few years this subject got more and more attention, especially the work of David Morley[13] has had a certain influence on this field of research. His work was used as an example for some others[14]. The main question is, what is the audience and how can it be defined? There are two possibilities. The first one is to define the audience as a mass, that can be divided into groups. Each group has its own characteristics and preferences. For the 1950's, this kind of research includes two problems. The first one is that there was, in the beginning, only a small audience, that was hardly sufficient to be divided into different groups. Then the audience grew immensely in the succeeding years and it was difficult for research to follow this rapid development. A second aspect is, that the behaviour of the audience was not representative, because the audience and all the other factors of television changed immensely from year to year.

But also for other reasons it is difficult to gain an image of the audience. In the Netherlands there was only very little research done on television audience in the 1950's which is in opposition to Germany, where the program makers were almost right from the beginning, curious about the reactions and opinions of the public. Secondly, 1950's literature mainly talked about the technological and sociological effects of television in general and not about the audience in particular. For the 1950's there is a lack of hard evidence concerning the Netherlands, what the audience and its size was, because there is hardly research done on this subject. Almost the whole data of that time is vague or simply does not exist. So most of the statistics of the 1950's are not based on hard evidence but on assumptions. Plus the existing material is hard to define[15]. For example, the few people in the early 1950's who bought television sets were very heterogeneous and they had many different reasons for consumption.

Despite these already existing problems there is a basic one in writing about 1950's television: First there was a negligible audience. When technicians were working on the new technology they were conceiving on a theory of an ideal of an audience. Then, when the system was ready for test runs, some people were given television sets, so therefore there was only a small audience just for these tests. It had not grown naturally - most of its members were privileged to become a part of a select group and not everybody who wanted to become a part of the test audience was able to. After this test period the system became available to the public and had to gain viewers. But the ownership of television sets was restricted by the price. In the 1950's the expensive television sets made the new medium an exclusive system. Only a small number of people, an elite, could afford the price of such an apparatus and others who could afford to pay that price bought other goods first. So "the audience" had the opportunity to become privileged members of the new system because of reasons of personal motivation.

In this paper the term audience is used for all the people who watched television. Therefore the 1950's audience is not only the family at home in front of the television set but all the people who watched television at home, at others homes, or in public (bars, cafes, television dealers etc.). They all had the opportunity to watch the program, to perceive it on their very own way and to judge about it. So they could discuss it and debate about the new system.

Television as a medium for leisure time was not an important reason for the purchase of an apparatus, because the programming was limited in time, choice and was not attractive in the beginning. Therefore the main interest of this study is the public discourse, because it was open to everybody and it could influence or stimulate others to participate in television. It also might have influenced program makers, politicians and all the other figures concerned with television. For this purpose many examples of individuals from the television audience shall be mentioned, as examples of individual opinions of the groups inside the audience. This collected material shall avoid the impression that the audience was one group with a common behaviour and attitudes towards the television programming. On the basis of the remaining material the audience and their motivation to participate in television of the early 1950's can be characterised as following:

The purchase of a television set had many motivations. The first owners of such a set probably did not know exactly the use of the apparatus, because even the broadcasters had no idea in which way they should use the medium.

Probably a small minority of the audience might have experienced British or American television and was longing to watch television in their home country.

Television sets became a status symbol, because they cost a high amount of money. Besides the car they were the symbol for status and wealth in the 1950's[16]. Some rich looked for another prestige symbol after the purchase of a car - it was a 'gimmick'.

The very first television sets were bought by people with professional reasons, like the people who were involved in television production.

Another group of buyers were people who ran a bar or cafe or any other public place, which wanted to attract clients by television.

People who did not own a television set but watched it at bars, café's and friends' places.

Interested people got fascinated by the new technology and felt attracted to own a high-tech apparatus. This group can be divided into home mechanics, who built their own do-it-yourself television sets and the wealthy people who could buy a ready made apparatus.

Despite the limited programming and the high price, some people might have used television as leisure time entertainment.

Beside these arguments about the audience there is another important group of people the so-called 'television critics'. They were part of the 'active' audience[17]. This group did not contain professional critics as we know from our times. In the beginning of the 1950's television critics were not really organised, and were subsequently unprofessional because of their lack of experience. But a lot of them had some strong feelings and opinions about television program they wanted to share with others. All the critics came from different backgrounds (television engineers, church, politics, etc.). They also had different motivations (promotion, morality, influence, power, education, politics) and aims and they used different media to publish their opinions. So a huge percentage of the population, part of the television audience or not, was able to receive the critics' opinion. The 'critics' were that part of the audience that had the possibility to influence the opinions of the audience. They could reach the public by other media, which had more of an audience than television in its beginning. Radio and newspapers for example attracted in the 1950's already millions of people. They were mass media, whether television was not.

1.3. Description of the mass medium

The terms 'medium' and 'mass medium' are the most discussed in communication science. Questions emerge like: What are the qualities of a medium and how can it be defined? Is it the quantity of audience or the number of channels that make television a mass medium? What does 'medium' itself mean and what are the theories behind it? There is still a discussion going on, but how does one define it?

One popular theory in science was proposed by Marshall McLuhan. He stated, that a medium is in between a sender and a destination. An oversimplified scheme would look like: A message is transported by a chain of sender, medium and destination. A mass medium is a system that can transport a message from one point to many points at almost the same time. Secondly a mass medium is a system that a majority of people is familiar with and uses. In that perspective a medium has always one side that transmits and one side that receives and is always part of a group of people[18]. However McLuhan's definition was always a point of discussion in science. Raymond Williams criticised McLuhan's work as an "isolating theory of 'the media'" in the formalist tradition[19]. According to Williams, McLuhan's ideology "the medium is the message" describes "the physical fact of instant transmission, as a technical possibility, that has been uncritically raised to a social fact, without any pause to notice that virtually all such transmission is at once selected and controlled by existing social authorities."[20]

Latest research agrees with Williams' criticism and claims, that the medium gives the message a certain shape but does not determine it. It is of minor importance of which shape the message is transported in comparison to the production, but interpretation and reception of it, gives a message its validity.[21] For this study the 'traditional' definition of the medium as a system is used but it also considers William's criticism. This study highlights specifically national features and shows that a televised message is not undifferentiated and uniform, but is formed and in the image of the country which produces and broadcasts it.

The majority of the audience were not familiar with television. They had a lack of experience of perceiving television and the program makers had a lack of experience of production. So the programs were limited in time, space and choice. Therefore television in the 1950's cannot be seen as the medium, that is a 'simulation of the world, a simulacrum,' as Jean Baudrillard proposed. Neither was it a kind of 'viewing machine' as Paul Virilio characterised it. A 'zapper' of our times is not comparable with somebody, who only had the choice to watch one program or not. The worlds of television reception did not exist and therefore had to be constructed from nothing.

Television in the 1950's has to be characterised as a medium that was in its infancy but which was poised to reach a majority of people. The discourse about television was still going on. People were watching television with high interest and the programs became a part of public discussion. But the new medium was not a mass medium in contrast to radio and cinema which had already gained that status.

2. A short prehistory of television in Germany and the Netherlands

2.1. The same idea at different locations

The "speculative period" was when inventors tried to build machines for transmitting motion pictures. New technical possibilities and new inventions made them try to realise such a machine. Independent by each other, some inventors tried to develop television, however nobody was successful and their machines failed. But their ideas still existed. This is why this period from 1875-1890 is called speculative.[22]

The first inventors worked with so-called Nipkow disc[23]. The principle of working of the Nipkow disc was used for the mechanical as for the later electrical systems. The principle was to cut a picture into single points and to transmit these points and connecting them at the receiver to the lines. Then they were combined to create a full picture. This operation started at the right top of the picture and finished at the left bottom.[24] It was repeated so many times and so fast that the combination of all the single pictures would appear in motion. The image of the first apparatuses was quite bad but because of the indolence of the human eyes some simple images could be figured out.[25] During this speculative period, a working and useful system was never developed, however it was the beginning of some technical norms for television.

At the end of the 19th century the military had the most interest in using television and supported the development of a system that was meant to be for communication. There were some ideas about how to use it. Cameras hanging on balloons could record the action of the battle field from beyond and transmit the pictures to the military headquarters. During World War II there was an idea of developing guiding systems for bombs, but it was never done. So the development of television was pushed by the military. The military needed a very special system. It should be absolutely reliable and should have a clear screen. The price of such a system was not important. In contrary the needs for a public television were completely different. Although public television needed a reliable broadcasting system, too, it had to have a cheap system supplying cheap television sets that were easy to use for laymen and presented in a shape that would be accepted and would integrated with the furniture. Furthermore the pictures should have sufficient quality. A mechanical system could not fulfil these requirements.

2.2. The development of the electric apparatus

The first useful television sets were electric. In the middle of the 1920´s, the television system changed from a mechanical to an electrical one. The quality of the sets improved and the price was lowered. The development of some electric devices like the vacuum tube, high voltage controlled light sources and other inventions made these machines possible. But still some engineers like John L. Baird were experimenting with mechanical systems. Their equipment was steadily improving and new features developed. Since 1928 Baird even broadcast regularly for the BBC. But the quality was that poor, that the BBC dropped his broadcasting. His mechanical system was never used for television again.

Though they failed in their own work Baird and other experts put the development of television on the right track. Baird for instance showed that a steady improved mechanical system was not useful at all. The spectators who saw his broadcasting were disappointed because of the poor quality. The work of Baird and all the others who tried and failed was necessary for the evolvement of a reliable television system. They tried in their own laboratories to simplify the new technologies and to make them more practical for daily use. They showed that television in the 1920´s was a fact and no longer a dream[26].

In the mid 1920´s the systematic enlargement of the public distribution of electricity occurred. The electric companies expanded and covered Germany and the Netherlands with an electricity supply network. They built expensive power plants and high voltage lines. The companies speculated to obtain the high investments by selling more electric energy[27]. The circumstances were auspicious. Electric light was introduced into the majority of the households in the cities and the demand of convenience should be satisfied by the introduction of many new electric apparatuses as washing machines, electric heating, toasters, radio sets and, of course, television sets.

The world depression in 1928 increased the price of the apparatuses suddenly and made the already expensive products into pure luxury goods. The purchase of electrical products decreased. Even if someone had the money to buy an electric machine, washing machines and toasters were bought first, because they were a help for the housework and relatively cheap.[28] Another reason hindered the introduction of television in the 1920's, too. For television sets a high voltage energy supply was necessary. In the 1930's not every household was connected to the public distribution of electricity. Whereas radio sets were tremendously cheap and also could be powered by batteries. Therefore the period of introduction of television started around 1930.

2.3. First public demonstrations in Germany

In 1929 the Radio Loewe AG, the Robert Bosch AG and other companies founded together the Fernseh AG. Their target was to keep all patents, the commercial exploitation and the sale of the new technology of television. The industry was supported by the "Reichspostministerium". They worked together on the realisation of television since the mid 1920's.

The first public demonstration was in Berlin at the "Funkaustellung" in 1928. Some people surrounding the television sets were disappointed with the poor quality of the television sets which were exhibited[29], because they were used to the high quality picture of the cinema.

The first contacts with the new medium television provoked mixed feelings in public. At the radio shows in Berlin the new technology of television was the main attraction. It seemed to be a very innovative idea to have your own television set at home. Others however, could not deal with the new technology, fearing that they would be under observation through television cameras. An old woman dreaded: "Are they able to look into our houses now?".[30] As a result only a minority of the German population was attracted by television. This was also due to the lack of quality. The industry knew that a television set could only be sold if it were good quality. The Telefunken company e.g. claimed in an information paper "Quality is important!" because the consumers were used to the good quality of film and radio[31]. But television sets and the television system in general could not offer the same level of quality.

2.4. The emergence of German television

When the National Socialists took over the government in Germany in 1933, television was already developed. There were television sets produced in series and the industry was prepared for the sale on a mass market. The new rulers just needed to organise the new medium in a National Socialist way. Radio, television and all the other broadcasting systems were summarised in the "Reichsrundfunkkammer", a part of the Ministry of Enlightenment and Propaganda. The industry, radio dealers, microwave amateurs, listeners, critics, the RRG (Reichsrundfunkgesellschaft) and the Fernseh AG belonged to the ministry of enlightenment and propaganda.[32] The television like any other media should be used as a tool for propaganda. It seemed to be a predetermined task, because it combined all the advantages of the already known media. Television could broadcast as fast as the radio and could transport images similar to the cinema.

The symbols and the creation of images were an essential part of National Socialism. Some ideologies like the "Führer-Mythos[33] ", the "Gemeinschaftsgedanke"[34], the latent and obvious militarism of the National Socialist organisations and the certain Aryan image should enter the minds of the German population.[35]

Since April 1934, the first transmitting of television test program was established. The first program was broadcast with 180 lines a picture from the emitter Berlin-Witzleben and with 30 lines from the "Deutschland"-emitter[36]. The 30 lines picture had an unacceptable quality. The 180 lines picture needed extensive improvement. In April 1935 the first public broadcast on the German television took place. Two days after the opening maximal 30 people could watch television in public television rooms that the Reichspost had built in one of their post offices in Berlin. On 18x22 cm large monitors, a tv-picture could be watched. The public show was successful. Up to 3000 visitors came daily.

But only television sets in Berlin and around the emitter Witzleben could receive this program broadcast. Even at the first day of emergence there was no possibility to watch it because it was not broadcast. The opening was filmed, however first public TV rooms were opened two days later. Because of this reason, only a few members of National-Socialist society came to the celebration. The test programs had probably deterred the National-socialists[37].

The "Reichssendeleiter" Erwin Hadamovsky opened the celebration with a speech. After the opening he was rather frustrated and told some representatives of the industry:

"Ich will Ihnen verraten, daß ich im Augenblick nur ein einziges Volksfernsehgerät kenne, den Feldstecher. Die anderen sind noch nicht so weit entwickelt- ich glaube sagen zu können, daß ihre Entwicklung noch eine Reihe von Jahren dauern wird." He submitted that television nevertheless should become a mass medium, a "Volksfernsehen".[38]

Until the end of the World War II., Berlin and Hamburg remained the only places in Germany to watch television in public rooms or with private television sets. Therefore, it was reserved for the population of these towns or visitors to watch television and become introduced and accustomed to the new medium[39].

Despite this circumstance the television industry was expected to be a boom. The sale of television sets all over the world should earn money. Technical innovations like large screen projection ought to replace theatre and cinema permanently. But this large screen projection of the television picture just showed in a large size how poor the quality of the German television was. Other inventions like the view phone were also flops, because the population did not use it[40]. Most of the new ideas were too expensive, not accepted by the public and not to be realised.

On January 1st, 1938 the number of the lines was increased up to 441, which improved quality. However the reputation of television was still bad. The worse quality had many reasons. The expectation of the industry concerning profits and of the National Socialists interest on the new medium for propaganda forced an immature system to appear in public. The initiation of the television system in 1935 was too early. When it was introduced it had several disadvantages. The number of lines was few and the size of the screen too small. The technology was unreliable and too expensive. Indeed in 1938, three years after the opening of the German television, only a few television sets were sold. Until 1945 the television purchase remained on a low level.

2.5. Programming until 1945 in Germany

Since the beginning of test broadcasting, only movie films and music programs were shown. In 1933 the RRG and the RPZ (Reichspostzentrale) had taken over the program. While the RPZ still did test-broadcasting, the RRG followed simple objectives. Their two hour program had to be as jovial as possible. Short films, so-called "Fernsehspiele", were shown, which were in the beginning without sound[41]. In 1934 sound was added. Most of the "Fernsehspiele" were theatre plays adapted for television. The term "Fernsehspiel" designated, that the film because of poor technical conditions was recorded in a special way. The poor quality of the film material did not show any fineness, so the actors had to use the dramatic movements from the Silent movies.

The program of the RRG was shown at the evening. It was broadcast according to a minute timing plan. If the plan could not be fulfilled there was still time for improvisations. The program followed no certain scheme. Everything that actors and film distributors like UFA or Tobis offered was broadcast. Most of the program was already known from cinema, theatre, or "Revue". New in television was the direct addressing of the spectator by announcers, who introduced to the single parts of the program. So they unified the different parts which varied in length of a few minutes up to 40 minutes to one unified program.[42] The announcers were the stars of television. They got the attention from the spectators.[43]

Olympia 1936 was a very special event in the history of the German television, because the Olympics were broadcast live by television cameras for the first time. Since 1935 possible by new cameras . Since 1935 new cameras that used the "Zwischenfilmverfahren" could be used for "up to date" news. A special car called "Reportagewagen" had all television equipment that was necessary for almost 'life' broadcasting on board. It was very important that the whole world would see the new cameras. The National Socialists wanted the world to show that Germany was prospering and was able to build high technology products[44].

The transmitting of these cameras was actually only seen in the public television rooms in Berlin. During Olympia, the opening hours were extended. In order to watch the transmissions the rooms were opened at 10-12, 15-19 and 20-22 o'clock. There were also more television rooms built so that another 300 spectators could watch the games. At the Olympics, German television broadcasting maintained the highest level of spectators until 1945. But most of the Germans still could not watch television[45].

After 1936 the normal program was broadcast daily from 20 to 22 o'clock except on Sundays. The content of the program hadn't changed much since the beginning. Light entertainment was still dominant. Mainly films were shown. Variety and Cabaret were broadcast live. A new feature was the 13 minutes report "Ufa-Tonwoche", which was an up-date news program.[46] The time of the programs were not fixed, but varied. The "Ufa-Tonwoche" was the only regular daily programme always shown at 20 o'clock. Before that each daily broadcasting started with a kind of "Fernsehspiel" which lasted about 5 minutes and consisted mainly of humour. Then the "Tonwoche" was shown which was followed by culture programs and short films shown in a variety of orders.

In 1938 the first real "Fernsehspiele" were presented. These "Fernsehspiele" were only produced for television. They were recorded by television cameras in television studios according to scripts made for television and shown live. They were however nothing more than smaller versions of cinema scripts that were modified for television. The time of the broadcasts ranged from a few minutes up to 30 or 40 minutes.[47] From 5.2.1938 the program was extended until midnight. At the time between 22 and 24 o'clock Revue programs (television for adults) and reports from some special events like the "Presseball" were broadcast live. Everything except the films was broadcast live. Also some new programs were invented such as gymnastic- and musical shows or special programmes like an evening of television organised by the KdF (Kraft durch Freude) organisation. Since the start of the war, the program was modified. The tendency toward entertainment was further polarised. Since 1939 the "Fernsehspiel" was broadcast longer each evening.[48] They also became more adventurous, because wounded soldiers became one of the largest groups of spectators during the war. Some television sets were especially put in hospitals for invalids.[49] Until shortly before the end of the war television was broadcast in Germany.

The majority of the programming staid pure entertainment. The rest was political propaganda. Programmes like "die SS singt" were actually less political than entertaining. Erwin Reiss has added up that in January 1938 the programme contained one quarter of political propaganda and three quarters entertainment.[50] For the military another special service was done. The many unsuccessful rocket launches in Peenemünde were broadcast live on television.[51]

2.6. No distribution of television

In spite of a mass production of television sets and a lot of propaganda for the new medium, television was never watched by a mass of spectators. The sale of television sets was restricted to Berlin and Hamburg, where the television broadcasting could be received. But the sale of the television sets was restricted by their high price anyway[52]. In 1932 the average weekly wage was 26,50 Mark and the price of a tv set 2500-3000 Mark and even when the prices were lowered to 1800 Mark in 1935,[53] it was still too high. TV sets were something for the rich but not for the average citizen.[54] Thus it is not a surprise that there were only 75 private television receivers in 1937- two years after the emergence of the public broadcasting.

In contrary the radio had 8.167.957 listeners in 1940, which was the largest number in Europe. The radio sets were low priced and the programs could be received all over Germany. They were up to date, new and especially made for the conditions of the radio.[55] Radio was dominating the public broadcast system. It had a large group of listeners, interesting programs and was used and supported by the National Socialists. But still television had its own kind of success. Until 1945 about 600-1000 television sets[56] were sold and about 100.000 people watched German television.

This little success made the other media frightened. The press was the first to make its mind up about the new medium. They suspected that the increasing quality of television would develop it into a serious competitor. In England e.g. even a campaign against television started. Sensational reports, such as "makes the television men infertile?"[57] were written in order to dissuade curious people from watching TV.

In Germany it was different. The German press was also in fear of the new situation of competition, but the supervisor of press and broadcast was as well an employee of the ministry of enlightenment and propaganda. A critical or sarcastic coverage of radio and newspapers about television would have never been accepted or tolerated. Television was to be considered a "high technology" product in the same way it was already done with the rocketry. The rocketry was called "Wunderwaffe". It failed as a military weapon and as a mature medium, but it was successful as an image for future technology.

For television the same image was created though the National Socialists doubted its propagandistic abilities. The quality of television was too poor. The National Socialists had introduced an immature system, which was not able to fulfil the hopes put into it. The National Socialists, who were always concerned about the way they appeared to the public, soon lost their hopes towards television. They refused to appear on television. First of all there was only a very small part of public which they could reach and secondly, the quality of television was bad. They feared that they would loose their image. Hitler for instance never appeared on television. He had to keep his "Führerimage"[58]. Because of the low propagandistic effect National Socialism lost interest in television and didn't support its further development.

2.7. Television test in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands many experimentators worked on television in the end of the 1920's and the beginning of the 1930's. They all build mechanical apparatuses that were based on the principle of the Nipkow disc and they all kept on working on the mechanical television apparatus until 1939, when the example they followed, John Logi Baird stopped his work. It had become obvious that the mechanical apparatus had failed in the competition with the electrical one.

Beside these private inventors the Philips factory in Eindhoven was working on electrical systems. First tests of the new television technology were made there. So at the same time as in Germany there were also first Dutch electrical apparatuses developed. But though they were running , they did not fulfil any standard of quality, because the television image was build by only 30 lines.

In the late 1920's Philips started research on the television project. In 1930 there were some public demonstrations but the quality of the image was that poor, that hardly anything could be recognised on the screen, that was extremely small, too. First television sets were presented in the 1930's and also television cameras were built, which could broadcast a live television program. So Philips organised a test program, that was broadcast in Eindhoven from the local emitter. This program was made out of short television films and live programs broadcast from a television studio.

The test broadcasting was a huge success. People who wanted to watch the new medium had to apply in order to be put on a long waiting list. Already then it could be expected, that television will be a great success and people will buy television sets despite their high prices. The longing of the viewers to watch and listen at television was spectacular. As a result Phillips staid the main supporter of the new technology.

The company tried to promote the new communication system. Therefore they build e.g. a 'Television Caravan', which travelled around Europe in 1938 to promote its own system. In the same year first public demonstrations were made, too. In Utrecht the visitors of the "vorjaarsbeurs" could experience the electrical television system the first time. World War II and the occupation of the Netherlands in 1940 stopped all work on the development of television at the Philips factories. The Television Caravan was destroyed by an air raid of Warsaw.[59]

Most of the radio stations followed the television experiments at the Philips factory in Eindhoven since 1928 with great interest[60]. But they never participated in it. Most of them kept distance. They were not sure about the future of this highly expensive technology that was using also the broadcast as a transfer medium. Therefore television was seen as a competitor and not as something that could be adapted by radio stations. At that time it was not clear, who would be able to use the television system. No laws existed and politics was not interested to work out a framework for the new medium.

But the future of television was not only in legal but also in commercial perspective uncertain. So only a company with a huge financial background would have been able to buy these devices. High investments in this medium meant to invest in something highly speculative. So the radio stations were not really open-minded towards television, they were just interested to find out what the new medium will be and what it means to compete with it.

Nevertheless the radio stations VARA, KRO and NCRV saw the importance to participate in the new medium and applied for television licenses. For this purpose a first commission was build in 1936 that should confer about television system. This commission went to Philips, Germany and Britain to collect information and judge about the new system. In the end this commission presented a paper that recommended to organise the television system in the same way as the radio system. The NOZEMA (Nederlandse Omroep Maatschappij) should organise and be responsible for the technological equipment, which should be provided by Philips.[61] Despite this work on the introduction of television in the Netherlands there was no working system established until 1940 and during the occupation of Germany there was no television broadcast or introduced at all. During this period of time there was no work done on television in the Netherlands.

2.8. Conclusions

In spite of good facilities, television was not qualified for the mass propaganda of the National Socialists. The introduction of a completely immature system and a messy strategy raised many problems. The poor quality and too many concessions to the technology created a new inferior medium. At the end there was hardly an audience in Germany that watched television. The television sets were very expensive and most of the people could not afford them. The sale of the appliances remained disappointing when compared to the expectations of the industry. The radio which controlled the market of mass media was much cheaper than television. The "Volksempfänger" was built in series and was cheap. A television set was definitely a high-priced product. Furthermore television as an electrical apparatus competed with other apparatuses like washing machines, whose acquisition was an essential easement in the household. Also the strategy of the National Socialists to show television in public television theatres had to fail. The demonstration in front of a big audience would have been in direct competition with the cinema, that was the state of art at that time. In cinema the size and the quality of the picture was optimal. The television program was restricted temporary and used adapted material from the "repertoire" of theatre and cinema. Old movies and little Revues were showed. Television could not show anything new, except old-fashioned programs in bad picture quality, for excessive prices and restricted times. At the end of World War II. television in Germany was still in the period of experiments, namely in phase 2. It was nothing more as a symbol for the National Socialist government. Contrary to America and England where it was already in phase 3. America had developed a high quality television system which covered all of the USA and was sponsored by the industry. This commercial system was better qualified for a mass market. England supported right from the beginning domestic television, despite high priced television sets. In both countries television was therefore much more developed to a mass medium than in Germany and the Netherlands.

As well in the NetherIands as in a lot of other European countries the start of World War II. meant the end of public television broadcasting. Though German television was broadcast briefly before the end of the war National Socialism focused more and more on war production since 1936 and the development of the television broadcasting had slowed rapidly. Until 1945 only a little minority of the German population did know about television and even a smaller group had already watched it.

In the Netherlands the situation was similar despite the fact that there was never a public broadcast established. Only a minority had seen the Philips caravan that was on promotion tour for television. In consequence only a few people in the Netherlands did know that there was something existing called television. The Philips factory wanted to co-operate with the state, but politics worked slowly and could not find a decision about television. During the occupation of the Germans no plans were made to support the television system.

Therefore the initiation of the "mass medium television" began in Germany and the Netherlands in the 1950´s.

3. The 1950's in the Netherlands

3.1. The post-war period in the Netherlands

It is obviously wrong to rethink the Dutch history of the post-war period as a time, that was governed and ruled by the fear of communism and the cold war hysteria. In his essay "Zestig jaar Nederland 1926-1986" H.Daalen contradicts this thesis, that draws a simplified picture of the situation in the Netherlands after World War II. H. Daalen states:

"Already since 1945 there was a controversial about the level of the control of the administration and the organisation of these institutions for an active government."[62]

Also other issues like the wage negotiations for the workers, the Dutch policy towards Indonesia and the foreign policy in general were of high interest and discussed throughout the Dutch society. The Netherlands had to orient themselves. There were a lot of Dutch people who felt attracted by the idea of 'Europe', which was linked to supra nationality and international rights. Others wanted to have a stronger relationship with the United States and a third group favoured to the Soviet Union as a socialist fatherland, that rescued Europe from Hitler.

The huge differences in the political area were similar to the different ideas of the organisation of the Dutch broadcasting system. Right after the war and the German occupation of the Netherlands a discussion began about the need to reorganise the whole broadcasting system. One group wanted to organise the system according to the British example, the BBC. They were in favour of a public state owned television station, that could represent different aspects of society. This idea was also supported by the first Dutch post-war government. Other Dutch people voted for a commercial system and took America as an example, where such a system worked since 1939. Another option was to resume the pre-war system. The government considered this matter.[63]

"There was some criticism of the prewar system on the grounds that it was not very open to the expression of minority viewpoints from within the various organizations. The Labor Party adopted resolutions calling for a more truly national system. But leaders of the catholic and Calvinist "pillars" pushed for a return of the old system, the Socialists gave it grudging support for fear of being left out, and back it came."[64]

The discussion in 1945 was ended very fast. It was the wrong point of time to think about it. After the nightmare of World War II. Dutch people wanted to keep their old system, that was familiar and therefore typical Dutch. The occupation of the Dutch radio system by the Germans which organised radio for National Socialist propaganda made any try to organise the broadcasting system differently suspicious[65]. So the pillarisation came back.

"De neiging tot herstel bleek vaak sterker, dan die tot vernieuwing. Van vernieuwing heeft, de omroep innerlijk weinig of niets ondergaan. Uiterlijk des te meer. Doordat de gelden voor de verzorging van de programma's niet meer uit vrijwillige bijdragen beschikbaar kwamen als voor de oorlog, maar door middel van de staat, kreeg de staat ook een zekere zeggenschap op dit punt. Allerlei belangrijke organisatorische wijzigingen kwamen tot stand."[66]

The critical points towards the introduction of the pillarised system were not forgotten but finally the decision was made. As Rob Berends states:

"De laatste strijd om de radio van 1945 tot 1947 was in het voordeel van het verzuilde system beslist."[67]

In the end the old system known from the radio was kept and adapted for television.[68] The groups in society were so strong that they did not accept any change in their usual way of experiencing the media. So society and its different groups were one of the strongest powers in the organisation of television after World War II.

3.2. The pillarisation

In the 1950's the Netherlands was still a strongly segmented society, divided into four subcultures - a Protestant, a Catholic, a Socialist, and a Liberal one - rather hostile towards and isolated from one another. Each subculture had its own organisational infrastructure with the main parties acting as the political branches of these organisational 'pillars' (zuilen). Pillarisation (verzuiling) was prevented from destabilization Dutch society through co-operation between the leaders of the pillars.[69] The audience of the broadcasting stations was always part of these pillars. They identified themselves with their particular station. Throughout all these years they kept a special identity that was modified and modernised but never changed. This idea is called the 'thesis of continuity'.[70] This thesis means, that the stations broadcast always a very recognisable program, that was governed by the specific themes of the groups in society.

There were many theories about the development of the Dutch broadcasting system. One opinion that can be found in the literature throughout all the time of the public broadcasting is that the different stations were always a part of a pillar in a system that was called 'pillarisation'. The audience of this station was coming from a certain part of society. Especially the Christian groups were organised in society. There were Christian schools, clubs, newspapers and radio stations. See for example the KRO (Katholische radio organisatie), which was integrated in the catholic pillar.

Besides the KRO there were three other stations involved in the beginning of television in the Netherlands: VPRO, VARA and AVRO. In history there can be found at least three remarkable periods which can not support the idea of pillarisation. First of all there was the occupation of the Netherlands by Germany in 1940-1945. All radio stations were occupied, too, and put under the control of the Germans. The, i.e., VPRO was not "free to speak" (vrij zinnig) anymore. So one of the elementary aspects of this radio station was lost. The radio station could not serve their pillarised audience anymore.[71] The continuity of the pillarisation was interrupted.

A second argument that undermines the "thesis of continuity" is the introduction of television. It is probably one of the most remarkable events that could happen to a society in the 20th century. In the Netherlands the introduction in 1951[72] meant, that the former radio stations, which had applied for a television license, now had to turn to television broadcasters and to represent and visualise the images of the audience on television screen. It was the beginning of something completely new and unknown. Therefore it was a radical change and not a continuous development.

On the other hand the system strongly relied on the principle of pillarisation. Television broadcasting was not legalised by the state. There existed no laws until 1954. In this year the principle of the pillarised television system became legal. The outline of the law looked like this:

...de Nederlandse omroep [zal] ook in toekomst berusten (...) op omroepvereinigingen, waarin de luisteraars zich in vrijheid en volgens godsdienstige of maatschappelijke richting hebben georganiseerd;

de voorgestelde organisatievorm van de omroep [betekent] in hoofdzaak een voortzetting (...) van het overgangsbestel, dat sedert 1947 zijn bruikbaarheid heeft bewezen."[73]


[1] Browne, Donald R.: Comparing Broadcast Systems, Ames 1989, p.46.

[2] Knut Hickethier: Phasenbildung in der Fernsehgeschichte. Ein Diskussionsvorschlag. In: Hans Dieter Erlinger / Dirk Ulf Stötzel (eds.): Geschichte des Kinderfernsehens in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland - Entwicklungsprozesse und Trends, Berlin 1991, p. 23.

[3] Eckert Gerhard: Monopol oder Wettbewerb im Deutschen Fernsehen, München 1958, p. 9.

[4] Raymond Williams: Television - Technology and Cultural Form, Glasgow 1974, p. 19.

[5] Ibidem, p. 23.

[6] As one example among many can be taken Walter Bruch, who was one technician in German pre-war television and could also keep an important position in post-war time. He is also the author of some historical books concerning television; See also Reiss, Erwin: Wir senden Frohsinn- Fernsehen unterm Hakenkreuz Fernsehen unterm Faschismus, Berlin 1979, pp.156-170.

[7] See the article: Ook landen houden stand op. In: Maasbode from December 23rd, 1959.

[8] Ibidem.

[9] Cay Dietrich Voss: Fernsehen - Neu geschaute Welt, Flensburg 1956, p.4; Please notice that there are no page numbers in this book. In order to give it page numbers I counted the pages from the first page of the written text.

[10] This idea is the basis of a book by Siegfried Zielinski: Audiovisionen - Kino und Fernsehen als Zwischenspiel in der Geschichte, Reinbek 1989, pp. 10-11.

[11] The 'Omroep Museum' in Hilversum provides an almost complete collection of Dutch television guides and articles concerning television collected from Dutch newspapers.

[12] See for example Raymond Williams: Television - Technology and Cultural Form, London 1974, p. 126-132, where he discusses McLuhan's theory of 'the medium is the message'.

[13] David Morley: Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies, London - New York 1992.

[14] One example among others is the book by Ann Gray : Video Playtime, Londo n - New York 1992; that is witten as an hommage to the work of David Morley. See the introduction.

[15] See e.g. Siegfried Zielinski, p. 16.

[16] See the article: Fritz B.Bush: Die große Freiheit. In: Auto, Motor und Sport, No. 13, 16.Juni 1995, pp. 170-176.

[17] This term is borrowed by John Fiske: Television Culture, London, New York, 1987, pp.62-83. In contrast to the examples given in that chapter the active audience of the 1950's had hardly experience of television.

[18] This definition is also supported by Knut Hickethier: Überlegungen zur Konstruktion einer Fernsehtheorie. In: Knut Hickethier / Irmela Schneider: Fernsehtheorien, Bonn 1992, p. 15.

[19] Raymond Williams, p. 127.

[20] Ibidem, p.128

[21] Eggo Müller: Fernsehen als "soziotechnisches System". In: Knut Hickethier / Irmela Schneider (eds.): Fernsehtheorien, Bonn 1992, pp. 70-71.

[22] John V.L. Hogan: The early days of television. In: Raymond Fielding: A technological history of motion pictures and television, Berkeley - Los Angeles 1983, p. 232.

[23] Walter Bruch: Fernsehstory, Stuttgart 1969, p. 43.

[24] Ibidem, p. 46.

[25] Ibidem, p. 44; In the Dutch broadcasting museum (omroep museum) in Hilversum such a television set is rebuilt. There It can be seen that such an apparatus could only screen very simple images.

[26] John V.L. Hogan, p. 233.

[27] Klaus Becker: Energieübertragung- und verteilung. Technische Entwicklung, Stand und Zukunftsaufgaben. In: Elektrizitätswirtschaft, Vol.91, No. 11/12, 1992, p. 659.

[28] Orland, Barbara: Wäsche waschenTechnik- und Sozialgeschichte der häuslichen Wäschepflege, Reinbek 1991, p. 208.

[29] Erwin Reiss, p. 33; Walter Bruch: Fernsehstory, p. 43.

[30] Channel 4 Documentation "Television" about the history of television produced by Granada.

[31] Erwin Reiss, p. 35.

[32] Ibidem, p. 33.

[33] Peter Reichel: Der schöne Schein des Dritten Reiches- Faszination und Gewalt des Faschismus, Munich - Vienna 1991, p. 140.

[34] Ibidem, p. 114.

[35] Herrmann Hinkel: Zur Funktion des Bildes im deutschen Faschismus, München without date, pp.22, 49, 67, 87.

[36] Erwin Reiss, p. 42.

[37] Siegfried Zielinski, p. 150.

[38] Erwin Reiss, p. 35.

[39] Ibidem, p. 42.

[40] Bernd Flessner: Das Fernseh-Telephon kommt - Bildtelefonprojekte in den 20er und 30er Jahren. In: Wechselwirkung, August/September 1995, p. 49.

[41] Knut Hickethier: Das Fernsehspiel im III.Reich. In: Uricchio, William (ed.): Zur Frühgeschichte des deutschen Fernsehens, Tübingen 1990, p. 79.

[42] Erwin Reiss, p. 42.

[43] Siegfried Zielinski, p. 154.

[44] Peter Reichel, p. 266.

[45] Erwin Reiss, p.65 ff.

[46] Ibidem, p. 104.

[47] Knut Hickethier: Das Fernsehspiel im III.Reich, p. 79.

[48] Ibidem, p. 101.

[49] Siegfried Zielinski, p. 187.

[50] Erwin Reiss, p. 107.

[51] Siegfried Zielinski, p. 190.

[52] Peter Reichel, p. 315.

[53] Erwin Reiss, p. 41.

[54] Siegfried Zielinski, p. 168.

[55] Manfred Hempel: Fernsehen unterm Hakenkreuz, dissertation, Leipzig 1969, p. 63.

[56] Walter Uricchio (ed.): Die Anfänge des deutschen Fernsehens, Tübingen 1990, p. 3.

[57] Quoted from the television program "Television" produced by the British television station Granada.

[58] Erwin Reiss, p. 39.

[59] Jan Bank: Mechanische of elektronische televisie. In: Huub Wijfjes (ed.): Omroep in Nederland, Zwolle 1994, pp. 80-81.

[60] Televisie demonstratie bij Philips. In: Vrije Geluiden, Vol. 22, no .52 (1928), p. 19.

[61] Jan Bank: Televisie verenigt en verdeelt Nederland, p. 79.

[62] H. Daalder : Zestig jaar Nederland (1926-1986).In: J.C.H. Blom/ H. Daalder/ J.H.J. van den Heuvel/ R. Witte/ A.C. Zijderveld: Een vrij zinnige verhouding - De VPRO en Nederland 1926-1986, Baarn 1986, p. 25.

[63] H. Daalder, p.38; VPRO: Schets voor een National Omroepplan, Hilversum 1959, p. 25.

[64] Donald R. Browne: Comparing Broadcast Systems, Ames 1989, p. 137.

[65] J.H.J van den Heuvel: Gij zult geen aanstoot geven - Overheidsingrijpen in programma's van radio en televisie na de Tweede Wereldoorlog. In: J.C.H. Blom/ H. Daalder/ J.H.J. van den Heuvel/ R. Witte/ A.C. Zijderveld: Een vrij zinnige verhouding - De VPRO en Nederland 1926-1986, Baarn 1986, p. 247.

[66] VPRO: Schets voor een National Omroepplan, Hilversum 1959, p. 25.

[67] Berends, R.: What is the message of the medium. Een historisch onderzoek naar de invoering van televisie in Nederland in de periode 1948-1955 en voorall naar de culturelle aspecten daarbij, doctoraalscriptie, RUG 1988, p. 133.

[68] H. Daalder, p. 38.

[69] R.B. Andeweg / Th. van der Tak / K. Dittrich: Government formation in the Netherlands. In: Adriaan Norbart: Dutch Society and Culture, Amsterdam 1992/93, p. 54.

[70] Zijderveld, A.C.: Vrij zinnig eigenzinnig - De cultuur en traditie van de VPRO. In: J.C.H. Blom/ H. Daalder/ J.H.J. van den Heuvel, J.H.J./ R. Witte/ A.C. Zijderveld: Een vrij zinnige verhouding - De VPRO en Nederland 1926-1986, Baarn 1986, pp.151-153.

[71] See the book by Michael Crone: Hilversum unter dem Hakenkreuz, Munich - New York - London 1983.

[72] A.F. Manning: Zestig Jaar KRO. Uit de geschiedenis van een omroep, Baarn 1985, p. 225.

[73] See the article: Het ontwerp omroepwet. In: VARA Radio TV Gids from January 10th, 1954.

Excerpt out of 120 pages


A European affair - a comparison of 1950's Dutch and German television
University of Amsterdam  (Film, Theater)
Catalog Number
ISBN (eBook)
ISBN (Book)
File size
839 KB
European, history, mediahistory, television, 1950, Dutch, German, broadcasting
Quote paper
International Master of Arts Dirk Schmelz (Author), 1995, A European affair - a comparison of 1950's Dutch and German television, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/13767


  • No comments yet.
Read the ebook
Title: A European affair - a comparison of 1950's Dutch and German television

Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book
- High royalties for the sales
- Completely free - with ISBN
- It only takes five minutes
- Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free