Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:13:17.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE BRITISH POPULAR PRESS AND VENEREAL DISEASE DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2006

ADRIAN BINGHAM
Affiliation:
Centre for Contemporary British History, Institute of Historical Research

Abstract

This article examines the role of the British popular press in the campaign against venereal diseases during the Second World War. Concern about the rapidly rising incidence of syphilis and gonorrhoea prompted the Ministry of Health to ask the press to carry a series of informative advertisements about VD, but the Newspaper Proprietors' Association refused to publish them until they had been made less explicit. A major controversy erupted in Fleet Street as the two most popular dailies, the Mirror and the Express, took opposing views about the suitability of ‘family newspapers’ educating the public about sexual health. While the Express refused to print even the edited VD advertisements, the Mirror broke away from the popular press's tradition of evasiveness on this issue and discussed the problem in unusual detail. The Mirror's bold approach won widespread public support, with investigations by Mass-Observation and the Wartime Social Survey finding that information about VD was, in general, gratefully received by a public hungry for more knowledge about sex. Although many editors continued to treat the subject very cautiously, the article argues that the campaigns run by the Mirror and the Ministry of Health marked an important moment in the public discussion of sex and encouraged the belief that all citizens should be sexually informed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Pat Thane, Lesley Hall, and the two anonymous referees from the Historical Journal for their comments on an earlier version of this article.