Historical story

Media violence and propaganda

When the Eighty Years' War had already started, but Amsterdam still had a strict Catholic city government, a lively public debate was held in that city. Several camps used a spin doctor-like media strategy to get the city population behind them. This went much further than just using the printing press. This is apparent from the doctoral research of historian Femke Deen.

In the summer of 1566 the Iconoclasm swept over the Netherlands; a particularly turbulent period in Amsterdam history. Everywhere Protestant insurgents invaded Catholic churches and destroyed statues of Mary and other saints. According to the Protestants, worshiping images did not fit into the true Christian faith.

Because of the brutal violence of the Iconoclasm, the protestants had made themselves heard clearly. Many Dutch cities sided with the religious reformers and thus with the Dutch Revolt led by William of Orange. Not the strict Catholic city council of Amsterdam. That quickly recovered and only resigned in 1578.

In the tumultuous period that followed – with a strict Catholic city government and many Protestants willing to speak out – a lively public debate took place. This is the research focus of historian Femke Deen in her dissertation ‘Moorddam. Public debate and propaganda in Amsterdam during the Dutch Revolt (1566-1578)'.

The city council, the insurgents, but also average city residents and the central Spanish authorities waged a fierce propaganda battle. They used all kinds of mass media – such as pamphlets, petitions and songs – to manipulate public opinion. Femke Deen shows that true media strategies were used by these groups to convince other parties of their right. This happened in a much smarter way than historians had previously thought.

In the sixteenth century, as now, the media, the public and politics were inextricably linked. Discussions in the streets and in bars even largely determined the political agenda. According to Deen, the Amsterdam debates were mainly about issues such as 'urban unity' and 'public interest'. The different population groups tried to convince the general public by means of sophisticated media strategies that such things were in good hands with them.

The city council of Amsterdam soon found itself in a difficult position:to maintain order, bloody persecutions of 'heretics' (rebellious Protestants) were the order of the day. How could a regime persecuting its own citizens protect 'urban unity', protestant propaganda wondered.

Willem van Oranje

Both the city council and the insurgents carefully considered with which message and through which medium the people of Amsterdam could best be reached.

According to Deen, the insurgents in particular were masters of this. Since the start of the revolt in 1568, there had been a well-functioning, national propaganda machine, in which William of Orange was also intensively involved. Orange, for example, sent letters to cities that were still under Spanish Catholic rule, including Amsterdam. In those letters he played on the fear of the Spanish soldiers and described, among other things, what atrocities the residents could expect if they did not join 'his' revolt.

The Amsterdam insurgents formed this national propaganda for local purposes. For example, rumors were regularly spread deliberately or politically oriented songs were sung. This was very efficient in circumventing the censorship imposed by the city council. The Wilhelmus is a well-known example of such a political propaganda song. Because both camps consciously tried to involve the city population in politics, the Amsterdammers were well informed about what was going on. They also became convinced that their opinion mattered and was heard. The 'brutal, articulate Amsterdammer' was born.