Comparison of The New York Times's, The Times of London's, Science's and Nature's coverage of the birth of modern atomic theory: 1896-1922

Qualitative and quantitative assessments of the content of early nuclear coverage in The New York Times, The Times of London, Science and Nature showed that the coverage was continuous over time, but the patterns of coverage did vary. The coverage was found to be mostly neutral and positive for all publications, but voices of caution were present from the very beginning. The coverage also broadened and became more comprehensive across time.; The journals often were the first to break new developments in atomic science, but were also seen to cite newspapers as original sources.; The newspapers had broader coverage both in tone and categories presented than did the journals, with Science having the broader coverage of the journals.; Finally, many mentions were found about scientists who were concerned with how they and their work were being received by the public. Some of these concerns were mentioned even before WW-I, in what is historically thought of as a low point in the interaction between science and the public.