In an ambitious study Christina von Hodenberg analyzes the role played by radio, television, and the national press in bringing about the inner democratization of West German society after 1945. By “inner democratization” Hodenberg means a far greater tolerance for, even a welcoming of, a diversity of political opinions and goals, and a reduced willingness to follow the direction of authority figures of all kinds (pp. 13, 257–8). Hodenberg's thesis is that authoritarian traditions, as well as the legacy of Nazi methods and the fear of communism, led in the first part of the Adenauer era to a search for consensus. Adenauer's domineering style may have initially been accepted, perhaps even welcomed, by much of the population, but by the late 1950s it encountered increasing resistance. The result was a series of crises in which significant parts of the mass media, supported by a portion of the public, successfully challenged state efforts to steer society.

The work begins with an examination of West German academic debates in the 1950s and early 1960s regarding the public sphere. Hodenberg analyzes the nature of the disagreements between conservative writers inspired in part by Carl Schmitt, who viewed the democratic public sphere as no more than a battleground for concealed interests, and thinkers with more positive views of the possibilities of public debate, the most influential among them Jürgen Habermas. The chapter serves to demonstrate the continued strength, if not dominance, of authoritarian traditions in the early years of the Federal Republic.

Hodenberg next turns to Konrad Adenauer. Although Adenauer was a target of Nazi persecution, not someone who applauded and served Hitler such as Schmitt, Hodenberg argues that he also approached the public sphere with the assumption that it required domination. Hodenberg describes the many ways in which Adenauer sought to “subordinate the mass media to [government] control” (pp. 153, 179). To achieve this aim he made available secret subventions for pro-government journals; provided guidance on a regular basis to friendly journalists (“If I were the chief editor of a journal, I would attempt …”); and sought the dismissal of insufficiently friendly editors and reporters at newspapers and broadcasting stations, although with mixed success (pp. 153, 157–8, 164–7, 211–7). Hodenberg claims that most journalists, especially those active in the profession before 1945, willingly accepted their role as instruments of the state (p. 198).

Journalists from the generation of 1945, those born between roughly 1921 and 1932, are the heroes of Hodenberg's story. She focuses in particular on those who worked for radio and television stations and for newspapers with national audiences, perhaps one or at most two thousand persons. Hodenberg does not provide a number, but it is possible to make an educated guess based on the data she supplies (see pp. 230, 247–8). As Hodenberg notes, there were very few women in this cohort. It was this small subset of the generation of 1945 that served “as the vanguard (Vorhut) that set in motion the development of a more dynamic public sphere” (p. 448). The 45ers had experienced the appeal of Nazism as children and young adults, and after 1945 the members of the “journalistic elite” on which Hodenberg focuses were determined to make Germany a more democratic and pluralistic society (p. 23). The American and British occupation authorities carefully screened out journalists with Nazi pasts, and especially in the radio stations these personnel decisions largely remained in force after 1949. “The ascent of the generation of 1945 into the leading positions at newspapers and broadcasting stations meant the slow displacement of consensus journalism” (p. 445; see also pp. 42–3, 248–9).

It was the democratic convictions of the 45ers, sometimes also mixed with professional self-interest, that led them to challenge the actions of the state and its leaders. The scandals their investigative reports provoked served as “engines (Motoren) of change,” leading many Germans to develop a less deferential attitude toward the political leaders of the state (p. 323). The Spiegel affair of 1962, by far the best known of these scandals, led to the resignation of Defense Minister Franz Josef Strauß and a promise by Adenauer that he would retire. Hodenberg places the Spiegel affair in the context of a series of less well-known contemporary journalistic challenges to the power of the state. Her account deemphasizes the role of the student movement of 1968 in democratizing West German society, as have several other recent studies of political and cultural change in West Germany: “It was not the 68ers who brought about the essential transformation in journalism after 1945” (p. 446, n. 8).

Hodenberg's approach has the virtue of identifying particular, human, agents of the changes she seeks to explain, and not merely ascribing them to larger, impersonal forces. Her claim that elite journalists of the generation of 1945 played an important role in the development of a more critical public sphere is supported by considerable evidence. Works by Ulrich Herbert and Dirk Moses, among others, also support this position.

Hodenberg's study leaves a number of questions unanswered. Hodenberg convinces that Der Spiegel and television programs such as “Panorama” promoted a greater willingness to challenge political authorities. The extent to which the work of the journalists of the generation of 1945 led to democratization in other spheres is left more unclear. The relationship between the journalists on whom Hodenberg focuses and the Social Democratic Party might have been explored further. Hodenberg's suggestion that the cohort that she terms “the Wilhelminer” were for the most part incapable of breaking free of habits of subservience to those in power learned in the Kaiserreich and perpetuated in the Weimar Republic is very broadly drawn, and gives too little weight to the diversity of political views in Germany before 1914 (pp. 27–9, 36–9, 84, 195–205). On the other hand, one might also wonder whether a critical public sphere, as Hodenberg defines it, was actually achieved by the early 1970s to the extent that her account on occasion implies (p. 460).

Hodenberg has written a pioneering work. Not the least of its virtues is its clear and lively prose. Her study makes a significant contribution to the history of the Federal Republic.