Hello Dear Historians of Reddit,
I've been reading up on the Franco-Prussian War, and the era surrounding it. So much of the events of this time seems to be shaped by "public opinion" (most famously both Prussian/German outrage at the release of the Ems Dispatch).
Going deeper, the newspapers of the time (at least the German ones that I have been able to access, my French isn't good enough to research there) talk about "the patience of the people having reached an end", etc.
We know how public opinion works today, how it is influenced by modern media, etc. But, how did this work in an era where the only news source was newspapers?
I haven't found specific numbers, but as far as I remember, general literacy in Europe was more or less a product of World War I. So, how many people would even have been able to read newspapers in the 1870s? Would "public opinion" have been limited, due to literacy rates, to the urban middle class and above?
Also, what were newspaper circulations like? And would events have been discussed in beer halls, etc. as well?
Sorry, that's a lot of questions. I guess, in summarizing: how was public opinion shaped in the era of the Franco-Prussian War, and how did it really influence political decisions, such as going to war?
On the point about literacy levels in 19th century Europe: I don't think your assumption that "general literacy was more or less a product of World War I" is necessarily correct. This dataset shows literacy levels in France and Germany (I suspect 'Germany' is used as shorthand for Prussia and the Bund states here) at around the 70% mark in 1870.
I can't speak to the dynamics of public opinion in 19th century France, so I'll leave that to someone else, but Prussia is an interesting case. This is from Christopher Clark's excellent history of Prussia, Iron Kingdom:
In the Rhineland in particular the 1840s saw dramatic growth in the popular consumption of newspapers. Rates of literacy were very high in Prussia by European standards, and even those who could not read for themselves could hear newspapers being read aloud in taverns. Beyond the newspapers, and far more popular with the general public, were ‘people’s calendars’ (Volkskalender), a traditional, cheap, mass-distributed print format that offered a mixture of news, fiction, anecdotes, and practical advice.
Now, in that extract Clark is talking about a pre-1848 revolution political culture, but what you saw post-1848 was a sea change in how the Prussian state treated the press — a shift away from heavy-handed censorship towards a more nuanced (and more manipulative) 'handling' of newspapers:
[Otto Theodor von Manteuffel] believed that it was time to move beyond the traditionally confrontational relationship between press and government that had been the norm before 1848. The administration would not enter directly into political debate, but through its press agency it would inaugurate ‘an organic exchange [Wechselwirkung] between all arms of the state and the press’; it would work proactively to establish in advance the right attitude to governmental activity. The government would draw on privileged sources within the various ministries to promulgate news concerning the life of the state and important events abroad. During the early 1850s, the Central Agency [for Press Affairs] succeeded in building up a network of press contacts that penetrated deep into the provincial press. Cooperative editors were provided with privileged information or funding, and many local newspapers became financially dependent on the various perks that came with joining the system: fees for official announcements, subsidies, ministerial block subscriptions and so on.
The second half of the 19th century is really the birth of the modern European and American press, and the start of the golden age of newspapers as mass media; it's a time when newspaper readerships (and thus the influence that newspaper editors and proprietors wield) rise explosively. You asked how public-opinion shaping worked in the pre-'modern media' era; essentially, the difference was that you had more newspapers, and the fact that the press had a near-total monopoly on mass communications made them even more important and influential.
In terms of how public opinion influenced political decisions, it's almost a chicken-and-egg question whether public opinion pushed politicians towards war, or if the Prussian statesmen were just extremely skilled at harnessing and whipping up public zeal. Certainly, ardent patriotism was a defining characteristic of the Prussian state, and it was a sentiment that the Prussian kings sought to cultivate. Clark also has a good analysis of the nature of the Prussian patriot wave in the late 18th century:
Prussian patriotism was a complex, polyvalent phenomenon that expressed much more than a straightforward love for homeland. It reflected a contemporary esteem for extreme affective states – this was, after all, an age of the sentimental, in which a capacity for empathetic emotional response was regarded as a mark of superior character. Tied in with the patriot wave was also the idea that love of fatherland might form the basis for a new kind of political community. As Thomas Abbt argued in his tract on death for the fatherland, patriotism was a force that could overcome the boundaries between the different estates of society. [...] In this sense, patriotism expressed a yearning for that ‘universal society of burghers’ that would become the political ideal of generations of nineteenth-century liberals.
I just did a paper on the press and public opinion on Britain during the Crimean War. I think some of my findings are relevant to your question, certainly because you asked about the surrounding era aswell.
/u/k1990 already mentioned the growth of the written press in the 19th century. The huge increase in coverage and readership meant that the press really can be considered a new medium at that time, the first mass medium. For the first time individuals other than the governement/the very rich now had a way to speak out to the general populace (before this could only be done by distributing pamphlets or printing books).
In my paper I argue that one of the biggest game-changers in the press was the publication of readers' letters in the paper. The letters could be about anything and from any person. There were contributors that wrote insightfull collumns but also personal opinions of the lower classes were published. For the first time the lower class was granted a voice in the national debate and that turned out to be pretty important.
During the Crimean war a lot of letters of soldiers to their loved ones were sent in and published. Britain didn't use censorship of private letters from the front yet nor did they employ censorship of the press. Therefore a lot of complaints about the deplorable conditions at the front and the ineptitude of the commanding officers got published.
This lead to outrage in the British public and a transformation of the idea of heroïsm. For the first time the individual soldier became the true hero of the war. The Queen reacted quite aptly to this change of opinion by creating the order of the Victoria Cross. This was (and still is) the highest award in the British military and this medal can be awarded to soldiers of any rank (before that only officers could be decorated) or even civillians that commited acts of bravery. Also monuments for the common soldiers were first erected in Britain after the Crimean War.
I argue that the Geneva Convention and the constitution of the Red Cross were direct results of this changing perspective but that connection needs some more research.
Now to expand a bit to Europe (but another historian might chime in on this as I know only the general outlines). The latter half of the 19th century started tumultuously with revolutions in almost all of Europe in 1848. The press broadened the perspective of the common man and also gave him a voice. Many nations started to cement their national identity through national anthems and symbols. The power of mass media was soon realised by governements and utilised for national propaganda.
* Edit * : A tiny tidbit on the VC I though would be fun to include. All the Victoria Crosses are made from the bronze cascabels of two captured Russian guns during the siege of Sebastopol. The cannon themselves are on display at the Royal Artillery Museum in Woolwich.
Sources: