v--

,' ELLKX.“ .

0:56.;

i

gawL ;,.

a-
~.

 

\ It.-.‘;
itlu‘;

- .
'f‘l

.‘Fv’v

.fr‘

n “’“kl

91Iy

-..-au~

‘(A

Aw“-.-.s.

_ ~
~ .
WQVQ.
In“.

4

'1- 0‘0:

 

Hv- ~ ‘
"F-‘.v . ‘1

 

- h- ~‘b ‘
I‘M w

a
>.
““3

2:;

 

t
‘4|"\

9
x
t

.

‘.-.'-'

— u

~'~ n

. .,
.1“

.4."

”fl
—
Ov-

 

. ,._
"' ‘ 'b V‘.‘
" ‘*"' s
.9: ..-.

u ~nx . a.

In"
. .

‘0‘.-
m.

cu...

‘.¢‘

*an‘
on...

w...

1144--
“mm-
~v
v“ .
u
4 .
x

a-" .

11- - . .
.P.‘ u ..

 

H388

J Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Comparison of THE NEW YORK TIMES' S, THE TIME OF
LONDON' S, SCIENCE' S AND NATURE'S Coverage of the
Birth of Modern Atomic Theory: 1896- 1922

 

presented by

Erik Sean Larson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

, .
Master 5 degmmin Journal1sm

 

 

(Me/fl/ J
V

Major professor

[hue August 28, 1992

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

I-*M .4

 

F..-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
MM (134: 3092

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WE

MSU Is An Affirmative ActiorVEquaI Opportunity lndltutlon
empmS-m

 

 

 

 

COMPARISON OF THE flgfl YORK TIMES'S, THE TIMES OF LONDON'S,
SQIEHQELS AND NATURE'S COVERAGE OF THE BIRTH
OF HODERN ATOMIC THEORY:
1896-1922

BY

Erik Sean Larson

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

School of Journalism

1992

ABSTRACT
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

BY

Erik Sean Larson

Qualitative and quantitative assessments of the content
of early nuclear coverage in The New York Times, 1h§_11mg§_g§
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 publicu 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.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Steve Lacy, for his constant
encouragement and help in Iguiding' my work, Dr. Lucinda
Davenport, for her aid in brainstorming and formulating the
scope and basis of the study, and Dr. Phil Shepard for his
critiques and fine editing. I would also like to thank Helen
Fordham for her patience and caring.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER ONE-INTRODUCTION

Historical Perspective
-Newspapers-

Change not limited to Newspapers

CHAPTER TWO-EARLY HISTORY OF
MODERN ATOMIC THEORY

A Brief History of Science Writing
CHAPTER THREE-THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Literature Review
CHAPTER FOUR-METHOD
CHAPTER FIVE-QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

Comparison of Tone for
The Two Newspapers

Comparison of Science and Nature

Comparison of Tone of Coverage
for The Two Journals

Comparison Among all Four
Periodicals

CHAPTER SIX-QUALITATIVE RESULTS

First Coverage of Roentgen's
Mystery Rays in Science and Nature

iv

vi

viii

12

17

26
35
37
53
61

74

79

9O

91

96

101

Deeper Analysis of the Early 104
Coverage Concerning the Medical
Use of X-rays

Comparison of Early Coverage 109
of X-rays: Journals vs.

Newspapers

Becquerel and the Curies 115

Arrive on the Scene

Nuclear Coverage from 119
1903 to 1911

The Death of Pierre Curie 129
Radium in the Earth and the Stars 132
Medical Coverage from 134

1903 to 1911

Nuclear Coverage from 139
1912 to 1920

Madam Curie's visit to America 151
and Particle Bombardment

CHAPTER SEVEN-CONCLUSION 165
APPENDIX-CODING DEFINITIONS 174
BIBLIOGRAPHY 179

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Sampled Story Tone of
Early Nuclear Coverage for
The New York Times and

The Times of London: 1896-1922

Table 2: Categories of Early Nuclear
Coverage for The New York Times and
The Times of London: 1896-1922

Table 3: Categories of Nuclear
Coverage With Multiple

Category Types Broken Down and
Added Back in for The New York Times
and The Times of London: 1896-1922

Table 4: Mean Number of Source

Types Per Story Used for Early Nuclear
Coverage in The New York Times and

The Times of London: 1896-1922

Table 5: Percent of Stories with No Source
Cited and Those with Multiple Source-Type
Cited in The New York Times and

The Times of London: 1896-1922

Table 6: Story Formats Coded for Early
Nuclear Coverage in The New York Times and
The Times of London: 1896-1922

 

Table 7: Headline Tones of Early
Nuclear Coverage in The New York Times and
The Times of London: 1896-1922

Table 8: Lead Tones of Early Nuclear
Coverage in The New York Times and
The Times of London: 1896-1922

Table 9: Story Tones of Early Nuclear

Coverage in The New York Times and
The Times of London: 1896-1922

vi

63

67

69

7O

72

74

76

76

Table 10: Sampled Story Tone of
Early Nuclear Coverage for
Science and Nature: 1896-1922

Table 11: Categories of Early Nuclear
Coverage for Science and Nature: 1896-1922

Table 12: Categories of Early Nuclear
Coverage With Multiple Categories Broken
Down and Added Back In for Science

and Nature: 1896-1922

Table 13: Mean Number of Source Types Per
Story Used for Early Nuclear Coverage in
Science and Nature: 1896-1922

Table 14: Percent of Stories With No
Source Cited and Those with Multiple
Source-Types Cited in Science and
Nature: 1896-1922

Table 15: Story Formats Coded for Early
Nuclear Coverage in Science and
Nature: 1896-1922

Table 16: Story Tones for Early

Nuclear Coverage in Science and
Nature: 1896-1922

vii

82

84

85

86

88

89

90

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Total Number of Indexed
Nuclear Stories in The New York Times and
The Times of London: 1896- 1922

Figure 2: Timeline of Early Nuclear
Coverage: 1895-1923

Figure 3: Total Number of Indexed

Nuclear Stories in The New York Times and
The Times of London: 1896—1922

viii

62

65

81

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The genesis of the modern science writer can be traced
back to the birth of the second scientific revolution at the
turn of the 20th century. This was the period in which
William Roentgen revealed the mysterious power of his X-rays,
and Marie and Pierre Curie told the world about two
radioactive elements, which they called polonium and radium.
These discoveries, and the ones that followed, rapidly changed
how scientists viewed the materials that make up the universe,
but this growth in knowledge was not limited to "ivory tower"
scientists and scholars.1

As knowledge of the atom and its great power grew,
through scientists' work with radioactivity and X-rays, more
and more of these debates and discoveries were put being put
on the front page of the world’s newspapers. Writers,
philosophers, scientists and doctors alike were caught up in
the possibilities of harnessing the atom’s great power for
areas such as energy supply and medicine. During this period
of possibilities, H.G Wells wrote of humanity's having
discovered an energy source able to power the way to a
scientific utopia, while newspapers and science journals

carried debates about the atom's secrets, sometimes in

2

language similar to that of the ancient alchemists. Similar
to those before them who had sought to turn lead to gold,
scientists such as Frederick Soddy, Ernest Rutherford and Sir
William Ramsay wrote of the possibilities that radioactivity
could indeed transform one element into another.2

These scientists’ and others' exploration of the atom's
energy, as an agent of healing and power, began in a landscape
of gaslit streets devoid of automobiles where communication
was primarily by mail and telegraph, but scientific and
technological advances were quickly changing this world.
Improved‘technologies relating to the automobile, electricity,
telephone and others were giving Europe and North America
greater control over their environment as well as shrinking
the distances between the continents. Similarly, scientific
and technological advances in the laboratory were leading
physical scientists to reevaluate their mechanistic views of
matter, views cemented during the first scientific revolution
of the 17th century.3

As the powerful secrets of the atom were slowly being
unravelled--to a culture which more and more cast an
optimistic and hopeful eye on science and technology--
newspapers and magazines increasingly began to publish stories
about these and other scientific discoveries. The media that
covered these revolutionary events were themselves in a state
of transition, as they began to leave behind the years of
yellow journalism, where sensationalism had been prized more

than objectivity.4

3

The purpose of this study is to assess the images
presented in the print media concerning atomic science during
this era of transition for both science and journalism. Media
accounts of how radium rays cured a cancerous tumor carry a
much different image and impression than tales of an X-ray
physician's hands being amputated because of radiation induced
tumors. While images do not necessarily create public
opinion, they do make up tints in the social canvas. Studying
how selected publications covered the emergence of modern
atomic theory around the turn of the century will blow the
dust from a few more of the early brush strokes in modern
culture’s canvas--which paradoxically depicts the unleashed
power of the atom as being both savior and slayer-~a depiction
that ultimately affects current views of the role of science
and technology in society.5

To assess the images presented in selected publications,
the study will measure the balance and pattern of media
coverage concerning modern atomic theory during this period.
The balance of science coverage will be analyzed in terms of
the number of stories, categories of stories, story tone and
sources used to construct the story. These quantifiable
factors of balance will be supplemented with qualitative
analysis of the evolution of the language, metaphors and
trends presented in this coverage, as well as the historical
time frame encompassing early atomic science coverage. All
factors will be traced over time to mark changes in the

pattern and nature of atomic coverage.

4

Analyzing the factors in this way will provide a clearer
understanding of the images presented about the nature of the
atoms 'The analysis will also consider how the media presented
early discoveries in atomic science and technology.
Unearthing these early building blocks of science journalism
will allow an assessment of the genesis of values that
underlie today’s science coverage.

The assessment will be accomplished by comparing coverage
of the birth of modern atomic theory during the early
transitional years from 1896 to 1922 in the United States and
England. The content of two elite papers, The New York Times
and The Times of London, and two science journals, Nature and
Science, will be analyzed.

Eighteen ninety-six was selected as a starting date for
the analysis because it was the first year in the selected
publications to contain coverage of Roentgen's 1895 discovery
of the X-ray--often viewed as the doorway into the inner
workings of the atom.

Nineteen twenty-one was chosen as the subjective
endpoint because it was the year that Edwin W. Scripp’s
Science Service began full operation under the editorship of
Edwin Slosson. The Service was a press syndicate aimed at
translating science plainly so that all Americans might
understand. It can be seen as a marker of a change toward a
more comprehensive and popular coverage of science, and
therefore sets off the preceding years as a period of early

growth in the media's coverage of science. Nineteen twenty-

5
two was included in the study solely to see if and how
coverage changed after the watershed year of 1921.6

Further reasons for supporting 1921 as an endpoint are
that it is also the year of Marie Curie’s historic visit to
America. During her few months here, she received a number
of awards and elicited a good deal of interest in radium
across the country; Her trip can be seen as a coming together
of science across the continents. Finally, 1921 was deemed
an appropriate end marker because this study concentrated
primarily on the press coverage of non-quantum and non-
relativistic topics of nuclear science and technology.
Quantum mechanics and relativity were being discussed during
this time, but not to the extent that they would later be.
The primary interest of this study was the early period of
nuclear discoveries, in which there is less detailed
communication research than of the discoveries that occurred
from the mid-twenties to current times.

Because of this primary interest in early nuclear
discoveries the terms "nuclear" and "atomic" are used
interchangeably in this study; 1ft is noted though that in
their current scientific usage, "nuclear" would.deal much more
with radiation emitting' materials and "atomic" with the
elemental and particle function of matter.

To assess this early period, the styles and manner of
atomic science coverage for the two papers will also be fully
explored and analyzed in terms of their balance and patterns

of change. The papers were selected because they were both

6

concerned with high quality coverage, both having made
commitments to cover international news during this time, yet
they were also in two seemingly'different transitional periods
in their histories. The New York Times, under new ownership,
was thriving while the more established Times of London was
experiencing a sort of mid-life crisis. Through quantitative
and qualitative analysis the study will compare, The Times of
London’s science coverage during its fall from grace with that
of The New York Times during its rise.

Comparing the data on each newspaper with that on the
science journal from its respective country will expand the
studies scope by allowing examination of the balance and
pattern of images being presented from different types of
jpublications during this period" The period from 1896 to 1922
presents an interesting transitional period of circulation
battles, pseudo-journalism, scientists' distrust of
journalists and revolutionary scientific discoveries. During
this transition the two members of the elite U.S. media to be
studied presented the birth of a new science and technology
to a burgeoning industrial America, while the two members of
England’s elite media covered the same revolution for a
scientifically and historically 'more established British
society.

Because this study is primarily exploratory in nature
and based on content analysis, it cannot provide direct data
explaining what governmental, cultural and organizational

decisions led.tx3 each periodicals’ editorial choices about

7
science coverage. It also cannot determine how the media
affected the public's attitude toward nuclear technology and
science, but it will provide a clearer picture of the types
and. patterns of images ‘that ‘were presented by the four

periodicals across time and the Atlantic.

Historical Perspective
--Newspapers--

At the turn of the century, newspapers like The New York

 

 

Times, the New York World, and the New York Journal were
locked in grand circulation battles, a major part of which

consisted of printing sensationalized versions of science or

7

pseudo-science discoveries and events. Pulitzer's World had

 

been printing pseudo-science pieces as early as 1883, but.when
the yellow journalism wars between the M and Randolph
Hearst’s Journal began to really heat up in 1892, the quantity
of unusual and sensational science stories increased,
especially in the papers’ Sunday issues.8

The newspaper giants continued their no-holds-barred
circulation battle on the streets of New York until the First
World. War, but along’ the ‘way they‘ did reevaluate. their
journalistic practices somewhat, especially when the
floundering New York Times changed ownership in 1896.
According to journalism historian Frank Mott, shortly after
Adolph Ochs took over The New York Times in 1896, Pulitzer

began to distance himself from the big talking yellow

journalism. At the same time, many other papers began to

8

change toward a more investigative style of journalism, called
muckracking.9

Muckracking picked up where the sensationalism of yellow
journalism left off around the turn of the century.
Journalism historian Robert Miraldi notes that muckrakers,

moved freely between conflicting journalistic

ideals. 0n the one hand, their muckraking writing

was dramatic, fictionlike and literary, with an

emphasis on human interest....0n the other hand,

the muckrakers were obsessed with dispassionate

investigation, with the search for the facts that

would inform public opinion. . . .Thus, while the story

ideal urged the muckrakers in one direction,

fledgling objectivity, pushed the movement in

another direction.10

This trend of newspaper crusading started to wane around
1910 and eventually ended along with the Progressive era in
l915—-the eve of the Great War. The big story during the
period just before WW-I was the coverage of the Spanish-
American war. The war effort was being lead by Teddy
Roosevelt, the same man who had coined the word "muckraker"
to air his disregard for the scandal seeking journalists.11

Many of the practices of today's newspapers were
developed during this period, all in the name of increasing
circulation and thus advertisement revenue. In addition to
the tried and true coverage of wars and great disasters (such
as the 1912 sinking of the Titanic) newspapers increasingly
began to use specialists such as sports writers and foreign
correspondents. Comics, editorials and columns also came into

popularity during this time, along’ with improvements in

printing technology. This era of great change in newspaper

9

history was also marked by the strengthening of labor unions
as well as the development of schools to teach the craft of
journalism.12

The New York Times rode this wave of change high and
hard, and emerged at the beginning of the jazz journalism
period of the 19205 with a daily circulation of 330,000 and
500,000 on Sunday. But two decades of steady growth didn’t

allow the paper to rest easy. The Democratic Times entered

 

the 19205 facing new competition from sensational tabloids,
such as the newly formed New York Daily News. The brassy
tabloids embodied the 19205, the period of blind-pigs, the
Tea Pot Dome Scandal and Mayor Jimmy Walker’s laissez faire

handling of New York City. By 1929 the Daily News would reach

 

a circulation of 1,320,000.13

The New York Times chose to fight the tabloids by
continuing its reputation for comprehensive coverage of
important domestic and foreign issues. Some of this coverage
focused on scientific discoveries and technological
developments. Since its early days, The New York Times had
always focused more coverage on science than any other New
York paper. Just nine years after it began, the paper had
given broad coverage to the 1860 meeting of the American
Scientists Association and later that year included a lomg
piece on Charles Darwin’s "The Origin of Species."14

This tradition of science coverage stayed with the paper

after Och's purchase at the turn of the century. Meyer Berger

states in his book Story of The New York Times that The New

10
York Times’s managing editor Carr Vattel Van Anda and E.W.
Scripps of the Scripps Howard newspaper chain,

were the first modern editors to recognize the value

of science news, and were the first to give it any

considerable newspaper space. Before they put

qualified reporters on the science beat, the man in

the laboratory shied away from the daily journal.

Scientists had been hurt too often by clownish

reporters who sought to amuse readers by treating

scientific discoveries lightly, when they noticed

them at all.

Van .Anda was instrumental in The New ‘York. Times's
coverage. of the Royal Astronomical Society’s testing of
Einstein’s theories in 19l9--a story that The Times of London
gave only brief coverage, because it thought it to be too
difficult for the average reader. 'Van Anda also sent reporter
Alva Johnston to cover the 1922 meeting of the Association for
the Advancement of Science. There Johnston wrote stories
about evolutionary theory, Einstein’s quantum ‘theory' and
Rutherford's smashing of the atom with alpha particles. Later
that year, Johnston won the Pulitzer Prize for his excellent
coverage; the AAAS meetings have been covered by great
newspapers ever since.16

The New ‘York Times's science journalism innovations
continued in 1927 when Och’s hired Waldemar Kaempffert as
science specialist and science editorialist. Berger wrote
that "Kaempffert was probably the first man on any newspaper
editorial board anywhere toidevote himself exclusively to this
subject."17 He was joined in 1930 by William L. Laurence, a

reporter exclusively of science, who would eventually take

over the beat covering the Manhattan Project and the testing

11
of the atomic bomb.18
To further ngiNew York Times’s science coverage, Van
Anda sometimes formed partnerships with papers across the
Atlantic. He was responsible for developing his paper’s
partnership with the historic Times of London in 1922 to get
exclusive North American coverage of the unearthing of
Tutankhamen’s tomb in the Valley of the Kings. In the deal
The New York Timgs got the sole rights from The Times of
London to all future Tutankhamen stories in New York as well
as the distribution rights to all other North American papers
interested in the story."
Like The New York Timgg, The Times of London also
treated the uncovering of the tomb as a big science story.
The story occurred shortly after the paper had changed
ownership, recently having been purchased from Lady
Northcliffe by the.Astor family, after a long ordeal following
the death of her husband. The Tutankhamen story and other
exploration stories highlighted the London paper’s coverage
during the decade of the 19205, which was a period of renewed
stability for the elite paper after the rocky transition
following the death of its influential owner, Lord Alfred
Harmsworth Northcliffe, in 1922.20
Northcliffe had bought the‘Times of London in 1908, while

it was rebounding from a low circulation of 32,000 in 1904,

down from 62,000 in 1877. This earlier decline of The Times

 

of London up to the turn of the century had been due in part

to the arrival of a popular press in England, aimed at the

12

lower middle classes, combined with changing tax laws and poor
management. (In contrast, during this same period, a
rejuvenated New York Timgg climbed in circulation from 9,000
in 1896 to over 100,000 by 1901.)21

After his purchase of the paper, Northcliffe was widely
credited with saving the paper from failure by, among other
things, cutting its cost to 1d (1 shilling or about one U.S.
penny) in 1914. He was also instrumental in reshaping the
paper in 1919-22 by adding modern elements such as photography
and. the picture page, changes the paper’ had previously

resisted.22

Change not limited to Newspapers

While‘The Times of London was experiencing a decline from
glory, and while Ochs was attempting to print "All The News
That’s Fit to Print," radical changes were also going on in
the world of atomic physics and other sciences. To keep up
with these changes the institution’s of science were growing
both in Europe and America. Just as The New York Times's
circulation jumped during this period, membership in the
American Association for the Advancement of Science climbed
from 1,925 in 1900 to more than 8,000 by 1914.23

The AAAS was founded in 1848 based on its older
counterpart, in England, the British. Association for the
Advancement of Science, established in 1831. One sign of the
upstart AAAS’s transition and growth during this period, was

the inauguration of the scientific journal Science in 1883.

13
It was to be the U.S. competitor of the premier British
science journal Nature, begun in 1869 by Sir Norman Lockyer.
Nature, in stark contrast with its newspaper counterpart
The Times of London, entered the 20th century as the "leading
international weekly scientific periodical" and the "the main
vehicle for the prompt publication of recent advances in

science."u

Lockyer used his journal to awaken a sleeping,
colonial Britain on the brink of decline into "increased
endowments of higher education and research and the
utilization of scientific methods in all branches of
administration equal to those at the disposal of competing
nations."25

Like Nature, the BAAS was also undergoing functional
changes during this time. It was beginning to take on more
of a role of science popularizer, in order to maintain its
place in a world of increasingly specialized science
societies.26

While the media and science societies transformed to keep
up with the changing times, the English empire was at a
watershed point in its history. Under Victoria, the empire
had recently added 2,500,000 square miles of new territory.
Still, while poised at the edge of a changing world
marketplace, England remained a leader in world politics and
world science, though it often shared the glory of scientific
discovery with France and Germany. As the colonial empire

adjusted to its changing role during this time, British

scientists such as Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), Sir William

14
Crookes (1832-1919), Sir William Ramsay (1852-1916) and J.J.
Thomson (1856-1940) led, the empire’s exploration of the

intricate world of the atom.v'

15

CHAPTER ONE
NOTES
1. Spencer R. Weart, Nuclear Fear (Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1988), pp. 3-13.
2. Ibid., pp. 12-13.

3. Emilio Segre, From X-Rays to Quarks (San Francisco: W.
H. Freeman and Company, 1976), p. 3.

4. Segre, p. 10.

5. Weart, p. 424.

6. Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science (New York: W. H. Freeman
and Co., 1987), p. 89; David J. Rhees, "A New Voice For
Science: Science Service Under Edwin E. Slosson, 1921—1929,"
(Master’s Thesis, Department of History, The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1979), p. 26.

7. Frank Luther Mott, American JOurnalism (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1967), p. 524.

8.‘ “Carolyn D. Hay, "A History of Science Writing in the
United States and of the National Association of Science
Writers," (Master’s Thesis, Medill School of .Iournalism,
Northwestern University, 1970,), p. 34.

9. Mott, p. 549.

10. Robert Miraldi, Muckrakinq and Objectivity (New York:
Greenwood Press, 1990), p. 29.

11. Mott, pp. 578-579.

12. Ibid.

13. Edwin Emery and Michael Emery, The Press and America
(Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1978), pp. 285
& 365.

14. Meyer Berger, The Story of The New York Times: 1851—1951
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1951), p. 250.

15. Ibid., p. 251.

16. Ibid., pp. 251-257.

16
17. Ibid., p. 275.
18. Emery and Emery, p. 369.
19. Berger, pp. 253-254.

20. Oliver Woods and James Bishop, The Story of The Times
(London: Michael Joseph, 1983), p. 253.

21. Ibid., p. 184; Emery and Emery, p. 281.
22. Woods and Bishop, pp. 10 & 231-232.

23. David J. Kevles, "George Ellery Hale, the First World
War and The Advancement of Science in America," Isis 59
(1968): 428, as cited by Rhees, p. 7, n. 10.

24. John L. Thornton and R. I. J. Tully, Scientific BooksI
Libraries and Collectors, (1962): 244, 301, as quoted in
"Science in Grub Street," Nature 224 (November 1, 1969), p.
423, n. 1.

25. J. N. Lockyer, Education and National Progress: Essays
and Speeches (London, 1906), p. 180, [sic] as quoted in "Into
the.Twentieth.Century," Nature 224 (November 1, 1969), p. 457,
n 2.

26. Roy Macleod, "Retrospect: The British Association and
its Historians," in The Parliament of Science, eds. Roy
Macleod and Peter Collins (Northwood: Science Reviews Ltd.,
1981), p. 34.

27. Segre, pp. 2-8.

CHAPTER TWO

EARLY HISTORY OF MODERN ATOMIC THEORY

Before Roentgen's 1895 discovery of the X-ray and the
subsequent discoveries of the electron, the Zeeman effect,
and radioactivity, the atom was generally perceived by
scientists to be an indestructible 'ball~ supported in an
unknown force called the ether. Everything from atoms to
planets were believed to operate either magnetically,
electrically, gravitationally or like light. Much of the
framework for studying the nature of matter still followed
the mechanistic rules set down more than two centuries before
by Isaac Newton. Consequently, much of the research in the
last half of the nineteenth century had dealt with measurable
phenomena such as discovering atomic weights and molecular
formulas, not with determining the make up of the atom.
During this time, the existence of the divisible atom was
still doubted by many competent physicists, most of whom felt
that the universe’s main mysteries had already been
satisfactorily solved.1

A statement made in 1894 by Albert.Michelson, an.American
physicist famous for his work in precision measurements,
reflected.this commonly held belief that all major discoveries

in physics had already been accomplished.

17

18

While it is never safe to affirm that the future of

Physical Science has no marvels in store even more

astonishing than those of the past, it seems

probable that most of the grand underlying

principles have been firmly established, and that

further advances are to be sought chiefLy in the

rigorous applications of these principles to all

the phenomena which come under our notice. . . .An

eminent. physicist. has remarked. that the future

truths of Physical Science are to be looked for in

the sixth place of decimals.2

Roentgen’s X-rays and the discoveries which followed were
to radically change Michelson's vision of the future of
physical science-~along with the vision of many others. Much
of this change in thought would center around understanding
such natural phenomena as the nature of light" Throughout the
centuries since Sir Isaac Newton, the debate had raged whether
light was wave or particle. In late nineteenth century, it
was determined that light traveled as a transversal wave (its
oscillations perpendicular to the direction traveled).
Etienne Louis Malus and Michelson among others experimented
with the nature of light waves through out the century, but
at the same time experiments into the nature of particles had
not been all together forgotten.3

In 1894 Pieter Zeeman and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz proved,
through the use of a diffraction grating, that light was
emitted by charged particles moving in the atom. (Humi on
November 8, 1895, Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen expanded physical
science’s knowledge of particles and light even further, when
he realized that his powerful cathode ray tube emitted "new

rays" from the point where the particle rays struck the wall

of the glass tube. These new rays could pass through the

19

flesh of the hand making an image of its bones on a
photographic plate. His discovery raised excitement all over
the*world, and because of it, Roentgen ultimately received the

first Noble Prize for physics in 1902.4
Roentgen accomplished his discovery using a cathode ray
tube, which is an evacuated glass tube through which a
negatively charged cathode emits cathode rays. The rays
travel through the tube’s vacuum hitting the opposite side of
the tube, making it luminous. At the time, the same old
debate raged whether cathode rays were particles or waves.S
By March of 1896 Henri Becquerel, working with uranium
to explore the relationships between phosphorescence and X-
rays, discovered that uranium emitted radiation that could
blacken photographic plates in the same manner as X-rays.
Shortly after this, in 1897, J.J. Thomson proved that cathode
rays were uniform and carried a negative charge. He had
discovered that cathode rays were indeed particles, which we
now call electrons, but his discoveries were over-shadowed
somewhat by the work of a pair of French scientists.6
Marie and Pierre Curie took Becquerel’s radiation work
with uranium a giant step forward by isolating the radiation
producing elements found in ore and pitchblende. Marie named
the two radiation emitting elements polonium and radium; she
then developed the term "radioactive" to describe elements
with this characteristic. The Curies quickly found that

radioactive matter disappeared spontaneously, reducing itself

to one half in a characteristic time they called half-life.7

20

Early on both Becquerel and the Curies also learned that
radiation could burn human flesh. Doctors soon began to
experiment both with it and X-rays to help control tumors and
other medical maladies. In addition to such commercial and
medical value, discussion. also began about the uses of
radium’s potential power and their possible ramifications.
Pierre Curie spoke of this potential power in his 1903 Noble
Prize speech, a prize which.the couple shared with Becquerel.8

It is conceivable that radium in criminal hands may

become very dangerous and here one may ask whether

it is advantageous for man to uncover natural

secrets, whether he is ready to profit from it or

whether this knowledge will not be detrimental to

him. The example of Nobel's discoveries is

characteristic, explosives of great power have

allowed men to do some admirable works. The are

also a terrible means of destruction in the hands

of the great criminals who lead nations to war. I

am among those who believe, with Nobel, that mankind

will derive more good than evil from new

discoveries.

Physics historian Emilio Segre notes that Curie’s words
indicate how even at this early time in atomic discovery, the
optimism in the supreme good of science was falling from its
earlier heights.10

Still, atomic science continued to grow. Ernest
Rutherford and P.V. Villard among others continued to learn
about the powerful and mysterious nature of X-rays and
radioactivity. In 1898, Rutherford realized that two kinds
of radiation came from uranium: alpha and beta rays.
Meanwhile in France, Villard discovered a third more

penetrating radiation, called gamma rays. Alpha rays were

known to be positively charged, but other than that they

21

remained a mystery. Beta rays were much lighter and
negatively charged, indeed they were cathode rays or
electrons. Gamma rays were found to be very similar to X-
rays. They were neutral in charge and came to be viewed as
quanta of electromagnetic radiation called photons.11

Later in 1898, Rutherford moved from. the Cavendish
Laboratory in England to McGill University in Montreal. At
McGill, Rutherford discovered that radioactive substances also
gave off radioactive gases or emanations as well as the three
kinds of radiation. He began to work then with the chemist
Frederick Soddy, and together they discovered transmutation
of elements. Transmutation refers to the ability of one atom
to change into a different atom. Rutherford and Soddy among
others were cautioned for this early work into the nature of
transmutation because it sounded too much like alchemy.12

Yet, because of their work and that of others such as
Sir William Ramsay and Otto Hahn, the nature of isotopes was
eventually understood. Isotopes are chemically identical
elements but with different radioactive properties. ‘Every
time these early researchers discovered a new radioactive
substance they thought it to be a new element. We now know,
through understanding isotopes, that these new substance5‘were
just different atomic states of the same elements such as
thorium, radium and actinium.13

Rutherford continued his work with atomic theory through

out his entire life, winning the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in

1907 for his work with alpha particles, and ultimately proved,

22

in 1919, that the mysterious alpha particles were helium
nuclei--the protons and neutrons of a helium atom’s nucleus.
His work with alpha particles also helped scientists to come
to some understanding of the shape of atoms. By bombarding
gold leaf with alpha particles, Rutherford demonstrated how
Lenard’s 1903 suggestion-~that atoms were mostly empty space—
-fit with Thomson’s ionic theory of 1898, which states that
negatively charged electrons were balanced by a positively
charged sphere in which they were imbedded--like plum
pudding.“

By bombarding the gold leaf, Rutherford proved that the
few positively charged alpha particles that were deflected
off their path (1 of every 8000) were repelled by positively
charged particles in the gold leaf (like charge repels like
charge). But the lOW'proportion ofldeflections led Rutherford
to observe that the positively charged.portion of the atom was
much smaller than Thomson had theorized in his plum pudding
model. This was crucial because of the large size of the
alpha particles. Rutherford’s worked helped to show that the
atom’s nucleus, containing the positively charged alpha
particle (a helium nuclei) turned out to be only 1/100,000 to
1/10,000 the diameter of the atom, even though the alpha
particle was "7350 times as massive as an electron" and four
times the size of a hydrogen atom.15

It was then understood that the small electrons orbit

this massive nucleus, so that most of the atom’s diameter is

made up of an empty space orbited by electrons--an electron

23
cloud, just as Lenard had proposed.

Physical scientists worked with electrons throughout this
period. and. ultimately' realized. that because the smaller
electrons were much easier to deflect or dislodge from the
electrical bond of the atom, they, not the positively charged
particles (protons), were ejected when light hit metals. This
is also»why'heated.metal filaments emit electrons not protons.
Because of this relative ease of removing electrons from
atoms, they were not a reliable measure of atom size. Thus
the size of the more stable nucleus became known as the
defining characteristic of elements. This meant a method was
needed to measure the different sized nuclei to help determine
atomic size. Physicists returned to the X-ray to do the
job.16

By this time it was known that X—rays were made by the
slowing down of the cathode ray particles when they passed
through the end of the glass tube. The deceleration of the
negatively charged particles produced electromagnetic
radiation in the form of X-rays. It was quickly learned that
stronger X-rays could be made by slamming the cathode rays
intoidenser and denser metal plates, called anticathodes. ‘The
denser the material the quicker the deceleration of the
speeding electrons, and'theigreater the radiation emitted from
braking the electron. Thus, the higher the atomic weight of
the element producing them the harder the X-rays produced.17

But this method of determining the size of atoms was

imprecise, and so a more precise instrument of measurement of

24
atomic weight was derived using the uniform structure of

crystals.18

Once the "distance between the planes of atoms
[of crystal] was known, the wavelength of X-rays made from
different elemental anticathode could then be calculated."
In this way it was learned that hydrogen had a +1 charge on
its nucleus and was then given the atomic number of 1 followed
by helium with a +2 charge and atomic number of 2 and so on
up the periodic table of elements.”

These early discoveries helped physicists and chemists
realize that nature could not be described and predicted by
using only mechanical, electromagnetic and thermodynamic
models. Mechanics and electromagnetics are characterized by
predictable and reversible actions such as tossing a ball into
the air or bending an electric current with a magnet.
Classical thermodynamics are governed by 1) the conservation
of energy and 2) systems naturally move toward randomness or
entropy.20

A conflict arose between the reversibility of mechanical
and electromagnetic ‘phenomena. and 'the irreversibility' of
thermodynamic entropy when looking at the universe as a whole.
Statistical mechanics was developed by Robert Maxwell and L.
Boltzmann, among others, to help bridge the gap between
elementary phenomena and macroscopic phenomena. They refined
the second law of thermodynamics to describe not absolute
phenomena but rather one of high probability. Thus on a

macroscopic level it would take longer than the age of the

universe to wait for an exception. Statistical mechanics also

25
raised.tough.paradoxes.concerning the nature of matter, as did
the blackbody problem.21

"A blackbody is a body that completely absorbs
electromagnetic radiation falling on it."a! The power emitted
from a blackbody is dependent only on the temperature and
frequency of the energy and not on the material the blackbody
is made of. Max Planck discovered the formula to explain
blackbody radiation, and thus discovered quantum physics by
defining the energy content of the blackbody as E=hv, where
v is the frequency of radiation and h is a proportionality
constant, thus E became a "finite amount, a quantum of
energy."23

Einstein built on Planck’s work and in 1905 published
the beginning of his work on special relativity. He would
ultimately show“that.light.is quantized using Planck’s formula
and that light exhibits a dual nature of both wave and
particle, as well as postulate the speed of light. Einstein’s
work ultimately led to understanding the balance of energy in
both an atomic bomb and the sun, thus providing clues to
resolve the paradox: between classical thermodynamics and
mechanical phenomena.”

The structure of the atom became further understood with
the work of Niels Bohr in 1913. Bohr further investigated
Planck's quantum theory, namely that "any object which is
converting kinetic energy (energy of motion) into radiation
ought to radiate energy in whole quanta (packets of light or

photons) only. Through his work he proved that electrons

26

have a ground or rest state in the electron cloud closer to
the nucleus, but also have many levels of excited states
further from the nucleus. Thus to release light, an electron
must release its built up energy and return to an orbit closer
to the nucleus. Likewise if the electron absorbs light it
moves to an orbit further from the nucleus.26

Work into the structure of the atom continued throughout
the period both on the theoretical and experimental level.
On the experimental level, during the 19205 Rutherford
continued to work with particles, "almost single-handedly"
creating the field of experimental nuclear physics with his
work in firing alpha particles into the atomic nucleus.vr

On the theoretical plane, Einstein would win the Nobel
Prize in 1921 for his work explaining the photoelectric effect
using the concept of the photon. Light is made up of photons,
which in turn have characteristics of both particles and
waves. This is also the same year that Scripps started his
science news service, in the attempt to educate the people as

to the revolutions going on in science.28

A Brief History of Science Writing
Communication of new scientific and technological
discoveries is not an easy nor new enterprise for the media.
In her thesis "A History of Science Writing in the United
States and of the National Association of Science Writers,"
Carolyn Hay labels Ben Franklin one of the early science

writers, because of his ability to describe his own scientific

27

29 Indeed medical

experiences in easily understood articles.
stories were running in North American papers as far back as
1721, when Ben Franklin’s brother James argued against
smallpox vaccinations with the Puritan Rev. Increase Mather
in issues of the Courant. And of course Ben’s Poor RichardLg
Almanac, contained folk remedies and agricultural news as well
as his personal accounts of experiments with lightning and
such."‘0
Franklin’s Almanac contained many of the same article

types: medical, agricultural and pseudo-science, that made up
rmnfli of 18th and 19th century science coverage. 2D1 1847
Joseph.Henry, physicist.and first secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution, addressed the importance of providing science
information to the public by stating, "In carrying out the
spirit of the plan, namely that of perfecting men in general
by the operation of the Institution, it is evident that the
principal means of diffusing knowledge must be the press."31

Press coverage of science often consisted of large
discovery and milestone news events, such as time laying of
the Trans-Atlantic Telegraph Cable, Darwin’s theory of
evolution and Robert Fulton’s steamboat trips. These stories
suited the battling newspaper giants’ hunger for sensational
and culturally important stories, which in turn attracted more
readers. The publishers ran them along with occasional large
scale adventure stories, such as the search for Dr.
32

Livingston.

In the 18705 and 18805 scientists themselves helped the

28
media to popularize science through books, articles and
lectures. Lectures by British scientists Thomas Henry Huxley
and John Tyndall were popular both in England and America.
A special edition of the Tribune containing Tyndall’s 1872
physics lectures in New York sold more than 50,000 copies.
English scientists and science were very often well received
in the states.33

A journalist speaking at Dartmouth college in 1873 said
of English science:

ten or fifteen years ago, the staple subject here

for reading and talk was English poetry and

fiction. Now it is English science. Herbert

Spencer, John Stuart Mill, Huxley, Darwin, Tyndall

have usurped the places of Tengyson and Browning,

and Matthew Arnold and Dickens.

This active involvement of scientists in the
communication of their research diminished at the turn of the
century, according to journalism historian David Rhees. Rhees
shows how scientists felt the coverage of their stories was
too often sensationalized and exaggerated. Another factor,
in the lessening of popular science was the
professionalization and increasing specialization of the
sciences. As scientific knowledge grew during the second
scientific revolution, both non-scientists and scientists in
different specialties were increasingly unaware of what was
happening in the new laboratories.3S

In 1906, one year after Einstein published his theory of
relativity, the Nation declared their dismay at the perceived

loss of scientific literacy:

Today, science has withdrawn into realms that are

29

hardly [intelligible]....Physics has outgrown the

old formulas of gravity, magnetism, and pressure;

has discarded the molecule and atom for the ion,

and may in its recent generalizations be followed

only by an expert in the higher, not to say the

transcendental, mathematics....In short, one may

say not that the average cultivated man has given

up science, but that science has deserted him.

Rhees adds that:

By the time of the First World War. . .popular science

had reached a serious state of decline. A new

generation of scientists had arisen which clearly

preferred the privacy of the laboratory to the
public lectern, and popularization lost its status

as a respectable sideline of the well-rounded

scientific man.

This decline in scientists involvement with the media
changed during the war when scientists from differing fields
were forced to work together for the war effort. Rhees notes
that an increase in government money for research was another
change induced by of the war. Previously, most of the
research money had come from university or private industry

sources . 38

The public also saw how scientific advancement had helped
them during the war. One example of this help was the
development of "synthetic substitutes for raw materials whose
supply was cut off during the war."39 Books on science sold
well during this period, but most papers didn’t give science
matters high priority. The media landscape was changing
though and in 1919 the American Chemical Society started the
first scientific public relations department. It was
0

established to help get ACS members’ news to the media.‘

Similarly, attempts to organize non-industrial science

30
writing came about in 1921 with the start of the first
official science. news organization, the Science Service,
founded by E.W. Scripps. Scripps saw the Science Service as
a translator of scientific concepts for the masses, so they
might form intelligent opinions on matters of national
importance and thus further democracy.”1

Scripps described his desire to educate the public in

science:

it’s useless to think of making the world safe for
democracy without thinking of making democracy safe
for itself. And the only way of making democracy
thus safe is to make it more intelligent. But since
to be intelligent is utterly impossible without
having much of the knowledge, method and the spirit
of science, the only way to make democracy safe is
to make it more scientific.

Scripp’s service closed in 1929. Rhees appraised Scripp’s
brief attempt to connect scientists with the public thus:

While Science Service should be regarded as a first,
significant step toward the development of such an
institution, in the 19205 it fell far short of
establishing a genuine rapprochement between science
and the public...So intense was his [editor Edwin
Slossen’s] vision of a world remade by science, and
so fervent was his desire to implant that vision in
the mind of the "multitudes," that the popular
science of Science Service under Edwin Slosson came
remarkably close to resembling the sermons of a
former chemist.

Five years after the Science Service closed The National
Association of Science Writers (NASW) was founded by 12
science writers who wanted to carry on the business of
disseminating accurate science news. Its credo stated:

This organization shall foster the dissemination of

accurate information regarding science, through all

media normally devoted to informing the public; and

shall foster the interpretation of science and its
meaning to society, in keeping with the highest

31

standards of journalism.“

Over the next three decades science and science coverage
continued to evolve togetheru The Second World War, just like
the First World War, produced great developments in science
and technology and.highlighted.their importance:to the public.
The number of science journalists grew as the public became
more and more interested in these developments and what
benefits they might produce. 'The launching of Sputnik and the
ensuing space race of the 19605 prompted another explosion in
science and science coverage, as well as, the beginnings of
in-depth scholarly research into the character of this
coverage. By 1969 the NASW had grown to more than 270 active
members."5

The journalist, of course, is not the only participant
in this evolving relationship between science and the public.
While scientists around the turn of the century kept most of
their research.within their circle of their peers, today, when
so much scientific funding comes from private and public
grants, scientists are much more eager to have their research
publicized. This study will look back to the genesis of the
relationship between modern scientists and journalists, to a

O o e e o to
time of revolutions in both sc1ence and media.6

32

CHAPTER TWO
NOTES

1. A. E. E. McKenzie, The Major Achievements of Science (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1960), p. 338; Isaac Asimov,
The History of Physics (New York: Walker and Company, 1984),
p. 245; Segre, p. 6.
2. Albert A. Michelson, "Some of the Objects and Methods of
Physical Science," Quarterly Calendar 6 (August 1894): 15, as
quoted in Robert H’.-"Kargon, The Rise of Robert Millikan
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), pp. 43-44.
3. Asimov, pp. 306, 321, 331.
4. Segre, pp. 22-25.
5. Ibid, p. 22.

6. Ibid., pp. 15-19.

7. Ibid., pp. 29-42.
8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., p. 42.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid., pp. 50-51.
12. Ibid., pp. 50-58.
13. Ibid., p. 58.

14. Asimov, pp. 536-541.
15. Ibid., pp. 538-540.
16. Ibid., pp. 536-540.
17. Ibid., pp. 541-544.

18. Atomic weight is the number of protons and neutrons in
the nucleus, with neutrons not being discovered until 1932,

33

by the English physicist James Chadwick, as an uncharged
particle in the nucleus with similar mass to a proton.

19. Asimov, pp. 541-544, 598.

20. Segre, p. 63.

21. Ibid., pp. 61-66.

22. Ibid., p. 67.

23. Ibid., pp. 66-67; Asimov, p. 371.

24. Segre, p. 80.

25. Asimov, p. 555.

26. Ibid., pp. 555-556.

27. Introduction to Ernest Rutherford, "The Chemical Nature
of the .Alpha Particles from IRadioactive Substances," in
Jefferson Hane Weaver, ed., The World of PhysicsL4Vol. 2 (New

York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 41.

28. Introduction to Albert Einstein, "The Fundaments of
Theoretical Physics," in Weaver, Vol. 1, p. 77.

29. Hay, p. 10.

30. Willard Grosvenor Bleyer, Main Currents in the History
of American JOurnalism (Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1927), pp. 52-53, cited by Hillier Krieghbaum,
"American Newspaper Reporting of Science News,: Kansas State
Bulletin, Vol. XXV (August 15, 1941), pp.17-18, cited by Hay,
p. 6, n. 3.

31. Quoted in Nelkin, p. 134.

32. Mott, p. 417.

33. Rhees, p. 4.

34. Frank Luther Mott, A History of American MagazinesLm4
vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939-57),

3:105, cited in Rhees, p. 4, n.5.

35. Rhees, p. 3-7.

 

36. "Exit the Amateur Scientist," The Nation, 83 (Aug. 23,
1906), p. 160, as quoted in Daniel J. Kevles, The Physicists
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), p. 98, n. 3.

37. Rhees, p. 7.

34
38. Ibid, pp. 9-11.
39. Ibid., p. 14.
40. Ibid., p. 17; Nelkin, p. 134.
41. Rhees, p. 24.
42. Charles R. McCabe, ed., Damned Old Crank. A Portrait of

E. W. Scripps (New York: Harper and Bros., 1951), pp. xiv-
xv, 10-11, 231, as quoted in Rhees, p. 24, n. 50.

 

43. Rhees, p. 88.
44. Hay, p. 3.
45. Ibid.

46. Nelkin, p. 7.

CHAPTER THREE

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The questions and format for this study evolved in part
out of two separate studies by Ed Caudill and Spencer Weart.
In 1987, Caudill published a study in which he compared the
amount of coverage given Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in both
The Neg York Timgs and the American Journal of Science. He
concluded that The New York Times’s and the Journal’s
patterns of coverage were similar and were both influenced by
the newsworthiness of the issue over time, with the Journal
presenting slightly more consistent coverage.1

Weart, in his comprehensive book Nuclear Fear, traced
the evolution of American nuclear images across the span of
the century. In developing his main conclusion, that "the
images we cherish have a greater role in history than has
commonly been thought," he made specific observations about
the press and its early coverage: of the nuclear issue.
Analyzing headlines related to nuclear issues in the Readers’
Guide to Periodical Literature, he "found very little negative
language" from 1900 to the middle 19205. Almost three
quarters of the titles from 1900-1940 were neutral with the

majority of the rest being hopeful.2

Weart attributed the mostly neutral and positive coverage

35

36

of early nuclear topics to the public’s commonly held belief
that few people were hurt or damaged by radiation, while many
medical. patients. ibenefited from ‘the technology.
Interestingly, he points out that during this time the public
knew that radiation was undetectable by the senses, but still
did not see it as something excessively harmful. He notes
that this fact seems to refute the suggestion, sometimes made
today, that people fear radiation because of its elusive and
unknown nature. At the same time, Weart notes that though
people accepted the mysterious aspects of the atom, fear of
these same mysteries was beginning like "a minute twitching
in a seemingly confident patient with a hidden neurosis."3
He attributes this fear to the underlying feeling of many
people that to view the "forces of nature in general and life-
forces in particular" was to glance upon forbidden secrets.‘

A previous study by this author of The New York Times
and the journal Science mostly supported Weart’s findings.
Negative stories made up only 12.2 percent of the 123 The New
York Times stories coded from 1896 to 1922; 40.65 percent of
the stories were neutral and 47.15 positive. ‘This deeper
content analysis of just the print content, however, revealed
changes in coverage in the types and number of sources used
over time. An increase in points of view was also found as
well as fluctuation in the tone of the coverage for the
period.5

A. more. detailed analysis of these publications and

extension to two more publications, The Times of London and

37
Nature would be useful. A broader and more comprehensive
study can provide a clearer picture of this period of
transition in the press’ coverage of science/technology and
more fully explore the balance of media content concerning
early atomic theory.

Weart analyzed headlines of stories as one indicator of
the print media’s images of content, and combined this with
analysis of the literature and movies of the time. This
study, however, is interested in more fully assessing the
images present in the print media. In doing so it will expand
upon the early analyses of the media, building upon Weart’s
headline analysis by looking at lead and overall story as well
as headlines. It will approach assessment of images by
combining assessment of tone with Caudill’s method of
analyzing the pattern of media coverage over time. By
combining these two methods, a clearer picture of the types
of images contained in early atomic coverage in the print
media can be obtained, and thus make it possible to more fully
assess this period of parallel development in nuclear science

and technology and early science journalism.

Literature Review
Communication research indicates that the mass media of
print, radio and television are today the general public’s
source of pro’s and con’s about technological and scientific
issues such as nuclear bombs and the "greenhouse effect".6

Not surprisingly, the corporate operators of these important

38

information windows, are increasingly aware of the growing
market for science news.7 In 1956 The New YOrk Timgg had
three science writers on its science beat compared to ten
full-time writers in 1991..8 More than ever universities and
science associations are offering programs to train science
writers to better perform the difficult task of relaying
science news to the public.

Gaye Tuchman locates the importance of understanding the
media’s functions in the large impact that their message can
have. In "telling stories of social life, news is a social
resource. A source of knowledge, a source of power, news is
a window on the world."9 Robert Stallings adds, "By selecting
events to report, by interviewing and quoting experts who
interpret those events, and by assembling and distributing
news products, news organizations create an important
Iicomponent of public discourse."10

The media’s selection of stories deemed "important
enough to cover," plays a part in setting the public agenda.
According to media researchers Maxwell McCombs and Donald
Shaw, as an agenda setter the media has the role of presenting
to the public those issues deemed important. "In short, the
mass media may not be successful in telling us what to think,
but they are stunningly successful in telling us what to think
about."11

The obtrusiveness or importance of an issue, such as the
ramifications of a poor economy, is also important in

determining what issues remain on any one communities agenda

39

even without media input. Still, there remains a correlation
between media selections and public agendas. The question
sometimes being which came first, the story or public

interest.12
Two criticisms of agenda setting research are that it
focuses too much on the political and not enough on the
specific issues, and that it doesn’t take into account the
nature of the issues analyzed. It doesn’t look deeply enough
into the implications or public reaction to certain important
events such as the disaster at Chernobyl.” Aware of this,
agenda-setting researchers are beginning to explore media
coverage of science, environmental issues, and disasters to
help understand the media’s agenda setting role.“
It is known that the public takes notice of what the
media portrays about technological disasters. Stanley Rothman
and Robert Lichter note that since the 19605 the public has
demanded more governmental control over scientists’ and
industries’ handling of potentially hazardous technologies,
because of what the public has learned from the media.
"[S]cientists employed by industry have less credibility than
either Ralph Nader or scientists who are members of public
interest groups."15
Rothman and Idchter offer three explanations for this
change in the public’s attitude toward science and technology
in the past two decades: 1) Accelerated technological change

since WW-II has produced technics with greater capacity to

injure large numbers of people; 2) Business practices operate

40
on profit and quick technological fixes more than protection
of people or environment; 3) Extreme environmentalism is a:
reaction to the loss of traditional social values.16

In their study of the perception of the risks of nuclear
power, RothmaniandZLichter’concluded.that fears concerning new
technologies such as nuclear power plants arose from real
problems which deserve attention. The researchers qualified
this conclusion by stating that these fears were heightened
by "conflict among various leadership groups, a weakening of
the social fabric of the society, a social mistrust that dates
from the early 19605, and a shift in the loci of influence and
power in the United States."17

In terms of the media’s coverage of the nuclear issue,
Rothman and Lichter found that journalists’ skepticism toward
safe nuclear power affected how they reported the stories.
Because of this, they concluded, U.S. public opinion has
probably been influenced by the manner in which new
technologies were reported in the media. However, in
concluding this they assumed that the press was a vehicle of
the left, and noted that some of the negative portrayal of
new technologies had come fromigroups and individuals who "are
partly seeking surrogates for a more direct attack on the
dominant values of Ugs. liberal capitalism." I“; evidence,
they cited how the political left in France can still directly
attack the existing political and social order without a

surrogate issue such as the environment.18

This assumption that the press is an agent of the left

41

is called to question by other studies. One, for example,
revealed that the percentage of journalists leaning to the
left has substantially changed from 1971 to 1983, with many
becoming more middle of the road politically during this
period.19 However questionable this assumption, Rothman and
Lichter’s study is right to suggest that risk information must
be communicated competently by the media, if the public is to
select the proper uses for science and technology.

With the media’s power to showcase science and
technology issues come also the abilities to confer status,
to form perceptions, and to provide selected information about

complex societal issues.20

OeneMWiegman.and fellOW'researchers
analyzed the important role that the mass media plays in
shaping "personal images, perceptions of reality and habits
concerning well-being and.health.9?i A.major component.of this
agenda and image setting role of the media is the reporter’s
choice of news source. Attributing facts and statements to
an "expert" or eye witness allows the reporter to take on an
objective role by appearing to be removed from the story.22
Dan Schiller traced the origin of media objectivity back
to the 18305, when using news sources was seen as an efficient
and cheap way of gathering news. Objectivity was:
nurtured by the climate of "Baconianism" pervading
contemporary American science, and through its
scientific deference to fact, the commercial
newspaper stood aloof from the progressive
relativization which eventually affected other modes

of thought. If science served an ultimateipublic
good, the commercial newspaper served both.2

Donald Shaw, in looking at early telegraph news

42
transmissions, notes that since the 18805 there has been a
steady increase in.the number of attributions in news stories,
and a growth in objective reporting.“ Michael Schudson
counters that while attributions began to rise in the 18805,
objectivity as common practice didn’t come about until after
World War I. He argues that objectivity arose out of what
journalists viewed as the need for common practices for
writing the news that could counter the propaganda practices

a Robert Miraldi answers Schudson,

that came out of the war.
declaring that "one can find numerous examples of how the
rituals of objectivity had already begun to be practiced"
before WW-I by the muckrakers.26

While the debate over the time frame of the evolution of
objective reporting continues, much.current media research.has
focused on objective journalism’s dependance on institutional
sources—-so called experts. Such a dependance often leads to
the establishment of the beat system, where reporters have to
rely (n1 regular governmental cnr other institutional
cooperation to get a story. This can be seen both on the cop
beat and the science beat.‘27

The science writer’s dependance on experts is affected
by the inherent differences between academic and journalistic
writing.

To the Academician, the language of the reporter is

excessively casual, trivializing, and simple minded,

if not.downright.wrong or silly; To the journalist,

the language of the academicians is excessively

passive, technical, and complicated, if not
downright wordy or pompous.

43

This difference in purpose and methods can lead to criticism
of the science journalist’s work. Carroll Glynn says of
experts and others who criticize science writing:

One of the main problems cited by these critics is

the tendency for reporters to ’sensationalize.’

Yet, news personnel must rely on excitement and

color in many of their news stories to capture

’reader interest.’ In the mere act of trying to

sell newspapers, the professional newsperson flirts
daily with annoyinq‘!9 if not scandalizing the

scientific community.

The audience of the story also comes into play as part
of the differing standpoints between journalists and their
expert sources. Conrad Storad said of the difficulty in
reporting scientific news,

The science writer is confronted with three basic

problems which must be overcome if the transmission

of an understandable message is to be accomplished.

The science writer must know what his audience is

like, how much the public understands and wants to

know about science, and how he can transmit his

information most effectively.30

In lineflwith this concern to better transmit information,
much of the current research into science journalism issues
has centered around the notion of effective communication.
The research has looked at such factors as accuracy,
completeness, comprehensiveness, subjects covered,
sensationalism, readability, and balance of coverage--which
will now be reviewed in that order.

Science media researcher Bruce Iewenstein, in a: 1991
study of media coverage of cold fusion, summarized current

research on science coverage that found science coverage

accurate in presenting scientific facts, and attributed

44

inaccuracies to an absence of sufficient detail. Science
coverage tends to be incomplete, fragmented, providing bits
and pieces without enough context.31 "This often shows up in
a focus on ‘the news’ without much emphasis on the continuing
process of science or scientific development.“32 The type of
issue covered.isldetermined.main1y by the number of people the
issue is perceived to affect. For example health and
environmental issues are covered much more often than stories
of basic research}3

Lewenstein. noted. that. many studies have shown that
science journalism "is rarely considered sensational."
Readability issues are complex, but can be boiled down to the
fact that readers and viewers want to see more science
stories, indicating that.the stories are readable andmdesired.
Scientists and journalists often blame one another for the
shortcomings of science journalism, but it is more likely the
divergent standpoints of science and journalism that lead to
poor coverage.“

Lewenstein states that issues of balanced coverage are
difficult because scientists view balance in terms of a
"logical analysis of the evidence and rejection of
unsupported" positions, while journalists view it as
presenting all sides in a controversy. Research indicates
that the media does present balanced coverage of the many
sides of an issue, but is more ambiguous in terms of

"scientific" balance. The media tend to focus on one part of

a story at a time then move on to "another part of the story."

45
This tends to create scientifically balanced coverage more
over time rather than at any one momentfi3s
Given the consensus onmwhat.makes up the objective.nature
of science coverage, Lewenstein and researchers such as Lee
Wilkins call for more research into the context and value

6

systems that affect science coveragefi3 Wilkins argues:

If journalists are to begin to cover the greenhouse
story through an agenda that is truly developed
within the journalistic, as opposed to the
scientific, profession, then they must first
acknowledge the values that help to define and
report the news. For example, the greenhouse effect

can be covered in terms of social, as well as hard,

science.

Journalism ethicist John Merrill writes, "Journalists,
at least those concerned with lasting value, are going to have
to recognize the great importance of their own values, not
only when they are interpreting the news, but also when they
are deciding what it is and how they will play it.Tm

Merrill brings up the debate between interpretive and
spot news stories. According to John Demott, an interpretive
news story' more frequently' contains extensive background
and/or exposition (n1 the topic than spot news stories.
Interpretive stories also contain more detailed descriptions
of people, places and opinions of cause and effect related to
the issue, as well as speculations about the future. This
increased use of reportorial opinion was seen as the best
differentiator of interpretive news.:39

Demott, though, raised the question whether interpretive

0

news decreases credibility of the media.‘ The issue of

interpretive versus spot news, seemingly takes us back to the

46
debate raised over muckracking journalists by the likes of
Teddy Roosevelt, and more recently to the debate over such
"new journalists" as Hunter S. Thompson and Tom Wolfe. Does
a journalist’s inclusion in a story of his perceptions and
views of an issue detract from the value of the piece?

By looking at journalism’s historical landscape of
muckrakers, new journalists and interpretive reporting, it
can be seen that while the nature of journalism and indeed
science coverage has evolved.through.out this century, in many
ways the same tough issues persist“ 1Cole found that,
"newspapers have performed the watchdog function in reporting
science news more in 1971 than in 1961 or 1951. More
controversy was reported in 1971 sampled science articles and
the controversies were reported across a much broader subject

matter.“1

But Dorothy Nelkin notes that current science
journalism practices have returned to the pre-1971 pattern of
verbatim, non-interactive reporting."2

How does this verbatim reporting of science coverage
fit in with the media’s responsibility in communicating the
many fine points of science and technology issues? Media
research has shown that coverage of individual environmental
issues and events affects what the public views as important.
"Thus, it may be possible to extend the agenda-setting
hypothesis to detailed levels of information about a single
issue."l'3 The media are the liaison between the researcher

and the public that often funds research.

As a liaison with such a high potential for setting the

47
public’s agenda concerning science and technology issues, the
media have some responsibility to provide accurate and
comprehensive coverage of highly complicated and evolving
theories and technologies. In the course of communicating
these issues, each discipline must in someway interact with
the other.

This study will look back to the birth of nuclear
technology and science, to assess how this evolving
relationship between modern media and science began. It will
examine patterns and types of images presented during this
early period of growth for science journalism, images that may
have shaped early public understanding of nuclear science and
technology. To get a better understanding of the early
patterns of coverage given to atomic science the study will
assess the tone, amount of coverage and sources cited. In
addition, the metaphors used will 1x2 considered as
representations of early interactions between a revolutionary
science and an evolving media.

While conducting this research two points were kept in
mind. First, as Neal Hines wrote about the relationship
between the media and nuclear physics:

Many times since August 1945 the newspaper has been

termed the primary agency for mass education in the

field of atomic energy. The scientists have turned
repeatedly to the press....And the newspaper itself

has reflected the nation’ 5 bewilderment at the

release of fundamental force.“

Hines study highlights the importance of nuclear coverage in

science writing history, but the second point is an; David

Burkett noted:

48
It would be easy to believe that public interest in
science began with the atomic bomb. To do so,

however, ignores thousand of years in which mankind
has struggled to uggerstand the physical world and

man’s place in it.

This study will endeavor to place journalism’s
contemporary role in shaping public perception of nuclear

science in the larger perspective afforded by examining its

genesis early in this century.

49

CHAPTER THREE

NOTES

1. Ed Caudill, "A Content Analysis of Press Views Of Darwin’s
Evolution Theory, 1860-1925," Journalism Quarterly 64 (Winter
1987): 784.

2. Weart, p. 53.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., p. 57.

5. Erik Larson, "Comparison of The New York Times’s and Science’s
Coverage of the Birth of Modern Atomic Theory: 1896-1922," (Paper
Presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication annual convention, Boston, Massachusetts, August
1991).

6. Jeffery H. Goldstein, Reporting Science (Hillsdale, N. J.:
Lawrence Erblabaum Assoc., Publishers, 1986), p. 2; Tony Atwater,
"Reader Interest in Environmental News, " mewspaper Research Journal
10 (Fall 1988): 31; Clyde Z. Nunn, "Readership and vaerage of
Science and Technology in Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly, 56
(Spring 1979): 27- 30.

7. Nunn, p. 30; Robert A. Logan, "Commentary: Rationales for
Investigative and Explanatory"Trends :h1 Science Reporting,"

Newspaper Research Journal 7 (Fall 1985): 53.

8. Nelkin, p. 2; per phone conversation with a New York Times’s
science editor, June 1991.

9. Gaye Tuchman, Making News (New York: The Free Press, 1978),
p. 217.

10. Robert A. Stallings "Media Discourse and the Social
Construction of Risk," Social Problems, 31 (February 1990), as
quoted in Sharon M. Friedman, Kara Villamil, Robyn Suriano and
Brenda Egolf, "Alar and Apples: Newspaper Coverage of a Major Risk
Issue," (Paper Presented at the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, Boston,
Massachusetts, August 1991), p. 3, n. 18.

11. Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw, "The Agenda-Setting
Function of the Press," in Emergence of American Political Issues,

50

eds. Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw (St. Paul, Minnesota:
West Publishing Co., 1977), p. 5.

12. Ardyth Broadrick Sohn, Newspaper Agenda-Setting and Community
Expectations," Journalism Quarterly 61 (Winter 1984): 897; David
Weaver, Doris Graber, Maxwell McCombs and Chaim Eyal, Media Agenda-
Setting in a Presidential Election: Issues, Images and Interests
(New York: Praeger Publishers, 1981), p. 195, cited by Sohn, p.
892, n. 3.

13. Hugh. M. Culbertson and Guido H. Stempel III, "Possible
Barriers to Agenda Setting in Medical News," prspaper Resparch
Journal 5(3): 53; Tony Atwater, Michael Salwen and Ronald B.
Anderson, "Media Agenda-Setting With Environmental Issues,"

Journalism Quarterly 62 (Summer 1985): 394.

14. Tony Atwater et al., "Media Agenda-Setting..."; Erick
Howenstine, "Environmental Reporting: Shift from 1970 to 1982,"
Journalism Quarterly 64 (Winter 1987): 842-846; Steven E.
Hungerford and James B. Lemert, "Covering the Environment: A New
‘Afghanistanism’?," Journalism Quarterly 50 (Autumn 1973): 475-
481; Culbertson and Stempel, "Possible Barriers to Agenda
Setting...", pp. 53-60.

15. Stanley Rothman and 8. Robert Lichter, "Elite Ideology and
Risk Perception In Nuclear Energy Policy," American Political
Science Review 81(2) (June 1987): 383.

16. Ibid., p. 384.
17. Ibid., p. 399.
18. Ibid., p. 397.

19. David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American
Journalist (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1986), p.
29.

20. Nelkin, pp. 11-12.

21. Oene Wiegman, Jan M. Gutteling, Henk Boer and Reinder J.
Houwen. "Newspaper Coverage of Hazards and the Reactions of
Readers," Journalism. Quarterly 66 (Winter 1989): 846-852, as
paraphrased in Sharon Friedman et al., "Alar and Apples...", p. 3,
n. 22.

22. Gaye‘Tuchman, "Objectivity'as Strategic Ritual: An Examination
of Newspaperman’s Notions of Objectivity," American Journal of
Sociology 77(4) (January 1972): 660-79, as quoted in Robert
Miraldi, Muckrackinq,and Objectivity (New York: Greenwood Press,
1990), p. 111.

51

23. Dan Schiller, "A. Historical .Approach. to Objectivity and
Professionalism in American News Reporting," Journal of
Communication 29 (Autumn 1979): 47, 49.

24. Donald. Shaw, "News Bias and the. Telegraph: A Study of
Historical Change," Journalism Quarterly 44 (Spring 1967): 3, 6.

25. Michael Schudson, Discovering the news (New York, 1978), pp.
88-120, as quoted in Miraldi, p. 32, n. 36.

26. Miraldi, p. 32.

27. Mark Fishman, Manufacturing the News (Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press, 1980), p. 52.

28. Carol Tavris, "How To Publicize Science: A Case Study," in
Reporting Science, p. 25.

29. Carroll J. Glynn, "Science Reporters and Their Editors Judge
’Sensationalism’," Newspaper Research Journal 6(1) (Spring 1985):
69.

30. Conrad J. Storad, "Who Are the Metropolitan Daily Newspaper
Science Journalists, And How do They work?" Newspaper Research
Journal 6(1) (Fall 1984): 47.

31. Edward.J. Burger, Health Risks: The Challenge of Informing the
Public (Washington: The JMedia Institute, 1984), as cited in
"Testing Truisms About Science and the Mass Media: The Case Of Cold
Fusion,"- by Bruce Lewenstein et al. (Paper Presented at the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
annual meeting in Boston, Massachusetts, August 1991): p. 5, n. 7;
Susan Cray Borman, "Communication Accuracy in Magazine Science
Reporting," Journalism Quarterly, 55 (Summer 1978): 345-346; Sharon
Dunwoody, "A Question of Accuracy," IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, (December 1982), PC-25: 196-199; D. L.
Pulford, "Follow -up Study of Science News Accuracy," Journalism
Quarterly, 53 (Spring 1976): 119-121; Philip J. Tichenor et al.,
"Mass Communication Systems and Communication Accuracy in Science
News Reporting," Journalism Quarterly 47 (Winter 1970): 673-683,
as cited in Lewenstein et al., p. 6, n. 8; Dunwoody, "A question
of Accuracy," as cited in Lewenstein et al., p. 6, n. 9; Borman,
"Communication Accuracy," 1978; James W. Tankard and Michael Ryan,
"News Source Perceptions of Accuracy of Science Coverage,"
Journalism Quarterly 51 (Summer 1974): 219-225; Hillier Krieghbaum,
Science and the Mass Media (New York: New York University
Press,1967), p. 39, as cited in Lewenstein et al., p. 6, n. 10.

32. Lewenstein, et al., p. 8.

33. Krieghbaum, Science and the Mass Media, p. 78, as cited in
Lewenstein et al., p. 9, n. 18.

52

34. Jeremy Green, "Media Sensationalisation and Science: The Case
of the Criminal Chromosome,: in Terry Shinn and Richard Whitley,
eds., Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Pcpularisation
(Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: D. Reidel, 1985), pp. 139-161, as
cited in Lewenstein et al., p. 11, n. 26; Nelkin, Sellin Science,
as cited in Lewenstein et al., p. 11, n. 27.

35. Mitchell Spephens and Nadyne G. Edison, "News Media Coverage
of Issues During the Accident at Three Mile Island," Journalism
Quarterly 59 (Summer 1982): 199-204, 259; Sharon Friedman, Carole
Gorney, and Brenda Egolf, "Nuclear Bashing in Chernobyl Coverage:
Fact of Fiction?" (Paper presented to Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, D. C., 1989), as
cited in Lewenstein et al., p. 7, n. 12; Rai Goodell, "How to Kill
a Controversy: The Case of Recombinant DNA,: in Scientists and
Journalists: Reporting Science as News, eds. Sharon M. Friedman,
Sharon Dunwoody and Carol L. Rogers (New York: Free Press, 1986),
pp. 170-181: Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science, as cited by
Lewenstein et al., p. 7, n. 13.

36. Lewenstein et al., p. 20.

37. Lee Wilkins, "Between Facts and Values: Print Media Coverage
of the Greenhouse Effect, 1987-1990," (Paper Presented at the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
annual convention, Boston, Massachusetts, August 1991) p. 23.

38. John C. Merrill and 8. Jack Odell, Philosophy and Journalism
(New York: Longman, 1983), p. 110.

39. John DeMott, "‘Interpretative’ News Stories Compared with
‘Spot’ News," Journalism Quarterly 50 (Spring 1973): 108.

40. Ibid.

41. Bruce J. Cole, "Trends in Science and Conflict Coverage in
Four Metropolitan Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 52 (Autumn
1975): 471.

42. Nelkin, p. 97.
43. Tony Atwater, Michael B. Salwen and Ronald B. Anderson, "Media
Agenda-Setting With Environmental Issues," Journalism Quarterly 62

(Summer 1985): 397.

44. Neal 0. Hines, "Atomic Energy and the Press: Two Years After
Hiroshima," Journalism Quarterly 24 (1947): 315.

45. David Warren Burkett, Writing Science News for the Mass Media
(Houston TX.: Gulf Publishing Co., 1973), p. 7.

CHAPTER FOUR

METHOD

Four periodicals were selected for assessment of their
coverage of early atomic issues. The periodicals were The New
York Times, The Times of London, Science and Nature. Their
coverage was assessed in terms of tones, patterns and images
used to communicate scientific and technological developments
during the period from 1896-1922.

All story formats in the publications were included in
the analysis to get a handle on the balance of messages and
images being conveyed about nuclear science and technology.

To help prevent a biased sample across the time period,
article selection was done using a random numbers table. The
numbers generated were applied to a numbered list of indexed
stories. A sample was then selected proportionately for each
year, creating a random proportionate representation for each
year. The sample was stratified by year so that the years
with more stories indexed would also have more stories coded.1

The New York Timpg sample was approximately 16 percent
of the total indexed stories, The‘Times of London--33 percent,
Science-~44 percent, and Nature--9 percent. Years where the
proper yearly proportion amounted to less than two but not

zero had two stories coded.

53

54

A stratified random sample of 125 stories was derived
from 763 articles, editorials and letters to the editor
identified in The New York Times Index for the period from
1896 to 1922. A similar sample of 130 stories was developed
from the 394 articles, editorials and letters indexed for Tpp
Times of London.

Articles drawn from The Nay York Times Index were found
under the key words atomic, cancer, energy, medical,
photography, radium, radioactivity, X-ray and all cross
references listed in the index. Articles in the two indexes
for The Times of London were found under the headings of
radium, Roentgen, radioactivity and science. The indexes were
the Palmer Index to The Times from 1896-1905 and The Official
Index to The Timpg from 1906-1922.

In the journal Science, a random sample of 62 articles
was generated from the 139 stories coded from the journal’s
index. The sample for the journal was increased by percentage
per year to help create a larger sample for comparison with
that of the other publications. The index was not up to the
standards of the other indexes, however, so the whole index
was searched for articles concerning nuclear issues. MOst
were found under the headings of atomic and radium.

In the journal Nature, a random sample of 174 articles
was developed from the 1,943 stories found in the journal’s
index. Most of the articles were found under the headings of
Roentgen’s rays, radiography, radiation, X-rays, radium and

Curie.

55

The New York Times’s index was by far the best in terms
of readability and lack of repetition of articles. Science’s
index was the least well organized and thus the whole index
was scanned for articles. The Times of London’s indexes often
had more than one reference to the same article, because of
its format of individually citing the sources involved in the
pieces. Nature’s index was quite thorough, but difficult to
count accurately because it listed many abstracted articles
on the same page, some by the same author.

After review of the periodicals it was decided that in
counting article numbers in both The New York Times and ng
Times of London, article references in the index that appeared
to be from the same article were only counted once. In
contrast, all of Nature’s indexed pieces were counted, because
it was observed that it listed co-authored articles under one
listing. In spite of the difficult nature of accurately
counting the indexes, the numbers cited are an accurate
representation of the total articles concerning nuclear
categories in the selected periodicals.

The sample articles were then coded for the five
categories: discovery and theoretical, medical, price and
Supply, energy, and. military (these are defined in the
Appendix). The categories arose from a pre-reading of a small
sample of articles and fit the majority of stories
encountered. Stories that did not fit solidly into one of
the five categories were listed in either of two additional

categories, "multiple" or "other."

56
An example of a "multiple" story was one in which both
the medical benefits of radium were discussed as well as the

difficulty in mining uranium ore.2

An example of an "other"
story was one about a boy who was said to have X-ray eyes.
He was reported to have been able to see where pools of oil
lay miles beneath the surface of the earth.3

Length of articles in terms of lines were also computed,
excluding headlines or pull-outs. Sources were coded along
with their institution and profession or qualification if
noted. Sources were those who were quoted directly,
indirectly or by any other attribution or citation (See the
Appendix). Source categories were, governmental, medical,
scientific, military, industrial, institutional, periodical,
layperson, author, publication, legal and other. When
possible, industrial, institutional, governmental and military
sources were also divided into more specific types such as
governmental medical or military science.

The use of art was also coded. Art included charts,
graphics, illustrations and photographs.

All articles for all publications were coded for
positive, neutral and negative tone of nuclear content. Both
newspapers’ articles were also coded for the tone of their
headline and lead. Because of the different story types and
international style differences, lead was defined as the
introductory paragraph for all pieces coded; likewise,

headline was defined as all bold faced phrases above the story

proper. The more scholarly style of Science’s and Nature’s

57
articles required.that only the overall article tone be coded.
The following definitions were used:‘
Tone -- The position and/or messages and images the
segment of the article presented on the nuclear
issue(s).
Positive -- Coded. when the headline/lead/story

suggested, implied or stated that the nuclear
issue(s) was beneficial, helpful, good or useful to

individuals and/or society. The topic of the
article was presented in a benevolent and good
light.

Neutral -- Coded when the headline/lead/story

neither indicated, accused, implied or stated that
the nuclear issue(s) was good, bad, helpful or
harmful to society or individuals nor did it redeem,
promote, or destroy them in any way. Articles that
were well balanced in presenting alternating
opinions are also included in this category.

Negative -- Coded. when the headline/lead/story
suggested, implied or stated that the nuclear
issue(s) was harmful, fatal, or dangerous to living
beings and or society. In these articles, the
reader received a message of caution or disdain
toward the nuclear issue(s) or a feeling that the
technology or science should be approached with
caution or dread.

Pattern -- Will be the term used to describe the

range of the nuclear coverage in the periodicals in

terms of the evolution of the number and categories

of stories and sources indexed.

In the preliminary studys, intercoder reliability was
100 percent for headline and lead tone and 84 percent for
article tone. For the full study all original stories were
re-coded along with all new pieces added to the sample.
Intercoder reliability was 98 percent for headline and lead
tone and 94 percent for article tone. The figures were

calculated by using a per-item agreement method for a randomly

selected article sample that consisted of over 10 percent of

58

the total combined sample population (N=18 of T=175 for the
preliminary study and N=50 of T=491 for the full study). The
test coding was done by an experienced coder other than the
original coder. Errors for story coding often related to
borderline stories. Due to the subjective nature of the
coding categories, 94 percent intercoder reliability indicates
that the results achieved provide a fairly accurate portrait
of the total population. The improvement in coding
reliability from the pre-study to this study was attributed
to the more detailed definitions of the second study, and
accounts for the slightly'different.tonal.ranges found.between
studies for the two original publications assessed.

A Chi square was run on all sets of nominal data to test
if the measured relationships were applicable to the larger
population. For example, a Chi square was run on the number
and types of tones coded in The New York Times and The Times
of London. A two-tailed t-test was run on all codings of
interval data, such as the number and types of categories
coded in any two of the periodicals analyzed, to see if they
are applicable to the larger population.

In addition to this quantitative analysis, additional
qualitative analysis was done in part by using the coding
categories of article format, headline summary and size, art,
line size and sources, and use of metaphors. (Definitions for
each category are in the Appendix). Much of the qualitative
analysis focused on comparing and contrasting the trends in

language and emphases of content found in each of the

59
periodicals as the time period of the study evolved.
The specific research questions were:
1. What was the pattern of coverage in The New York Times and
The Times of London in regard to the atomic issue from 1896
to 1922?

2. What was the tone of this coverage?

3. What was the pattern of coverage in Science and Nature in
regard to the atomic issue from 1896 to 1922?

4. What was the tone of this coverage?

5. How does the pattern and tone of the two newspapers’
coverage compare to that of Science and Nature?

6. What trends in images and practices does the
analysis point to that reflect on the relationship between
science journalism and science and technology at the turn of
the century?

Answering these questions can provide a clearer picture
of how the media communicated modern research and technology

to the masses during this transitional period in both science

and journalism.

60

CHAPTER FOUR
NOTES

1. Earl Babbie,‘The Practice of Social.Research (California:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1983), p. 496.

2. The New York Times, 15 January 1914, p. 2.

3. The Ngy York Times, 14 December 1901, p. 3.

4. Jeff E. Brand, "A Course of an Agenda: New York Times
Coverage of Television’s Effects on Children, 1939 - 1972,"

(Term Paper, Michigan State University, 1990), p. 6.

5. Larson, "Comparison of Coverage."

CHAPTER FIVE

QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

The first research question sought to compare the
pattern of The New York Times's early nuclear coverage
versus that of The Times of London. As Figure 1 & Table 1
show the coverage was continuous and variable over time for
both publications.

Comparing Figure 1 to Figure 2 indicates that most of
the peaks in coverage followed closely after such major
events as Roentgen's 1895 X-ray discovery and the Curies'
1898 discovery of radium, but not always the year of or even
the year after such discoveries. In the case of radium it
took further research and world-wide recognition before the
papers' gave the story wide coverage.

Coverage of the radium story didn't peak until 1903,
the year that the Curies and Becquerel split the Nobel
Prize. The Times of London ran 27 nuclear issue stories
that year while The New York Timpp ran 15. The New York

Times followed with 21 pieces the following year, while The

 

Times of London's coverage dropped to six.

61

62

Nunbér- of Star

125

So

 

 

s .._\
e
x. a
a.
we 1 a u I <
“I n‘ I
a... .v _
2-111171 1

 

: 2 II II o _ N I I u I I I I _o _I e z z I“ _m z a II No a s
(mmsm Amos so How»

s scgsfism *.I;aoIgag

mwacuo H" Honey 253506 on Hnooxoa Zaowoun mnonwou w:

are 20: «08* awaou and are swam» om reason" Hmmmspwmm

 

63

Table 1: Sampled Story Tone of Early Nuclear Coverage for
The New York Times and The Times of London by Year: 1896-

1922

 

H

The New York Times The Times of London

N=125 N=13O

 

Tone Pos. Neut.

2
(D
0

Pos. Neut. Neg.

 

1896

b
H

 

1897

 

1898

 

1899

 

1900

 

1901

 

1902

 

1903

 

1904

 

1905

 

1906

 

1907

 

1908

 

1909

 

1910

 

1911

 

1912

 

UlmNWI-‘NI-‘(DONWOOOHHH

1913

 

1914

H
O

 

1915

H

 

 

 

 

 

 

NHQQOHHNI—‘HHWNHONHOOHU‘
owWCflNNWNNWOl-‘HNNOOONO

HONHHOOOOOHOI—‘OOOOOONO
HdeWNNahOf-‘NOOOHNNOHHH

1916

N

 

 

 

.OOOOOOHNNOHHOOOOOOOOO

 

64

Table 1 (cont ' d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1917 2 0 0 0 0 0
1918 l 1 0 0 3 0
1919 2 1 0 2 2 0
1920 3 0 2 4 0 1
1921 2 15 0 0 7 3
1922 1 4 0 1 3 0—
TOTAL 50 64 11 46 70 11 I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

655

«noun: v3<uHOHaa canyon
carom awnmn unnosunu no
coo «saves on «noonSosn
now are: cannon

_ wcnsonnond pnopomou :cnwosn
nuanced :cnwocm

cause m gone pandpowom

zhopm :ozn ao<o~o u
meHo m vacuum ncnpo . . _mnosen scoop p

 

apnoo<mn powoswcs and «moves
_ v. z. m. mwonxmnn amnonuwamm. o<
0.6.x. zwwmos ws<msnm . cmwsa neoca numsUmn pzonoanmu:m.
q.q. auoamo: waoanwnemm . owoca ozasqon . nsmn opera mmnnwnwm pm nmuncnmd
. . U< acnwocm w: nuanmscnonwozm

owennno:

 

xcnsonnona m mnemonenx moad< someone

moan“ monacnnow oqmon<om
unapomnnw<wnw nomcwn on onoswo

moonnmzoocm noawanuo:

 

demeanoonanwo:
zcnzonmonc awmno<onu pHOno:
. nzfiosa: nnasu:snanwon c<
2.0. moanam: nemno<mnm xrnw<m nonnHOPo cosoonoaoun
——F_—Fb. —_____ ___Cbb ___W»F
pmom Hooo Hoom Hope . poem Home Homm

mwosuo u" ewaowwuo on mmnww zcnwomn no<mnmomu

HmoMIHmnw

66

Yet, not all coverage peaks are a direct result of
scientific discoveries or recognition of them. For example
after 1904, The Neprork Times's coverage stayed around the
15-28 story level until it peaked again in 1913-14, when
much discussion of the medical and industrial value of both
radium and X-rays hit its pages along with talk about
radium's high price and low supply (See Figure #1). No one
major discovery contributed to this coverage peak: during
this two year period, 20 of the 30 stories coded in the New
York paper contained stories about medical topics and ten
about supply--five of these stories mentioned both topics
(See Table #1 for total coded).

Similarly, The Times of London's coverage peaked in
1913-14 with 34 and 63 stories respectively, of which the
sample revealed that 16 stories spoke of medical topics, 11
of price and supply and five mentioned both categories.

Both papers ran more stories in the two year period of 1913-
14 than any other two year period in the sample (See Figure
#1).

While there were a few major discoveries around this
time, such as Rutherford's revelation of the positively
charged nucleus and Niels Bohr's proposal for the orbital
model of the atom, only nine discovery stories were coded in
both papers compared to the large amount of price and supply
and medical pieces.

Table 2 reveals that overall 36.0% of The New York
Times‘s stories coded fell into the medical category, which

was slightly more than the 31.5% coded in the same category

67
for The Times of London. The Times of London carried more
discovery pieces earlier in the period, but this trend
evened out when looking at the total sample. Still, overall
the London paper did carry a bit more discovery stories, at
12.8% and 18.5% for The New York Timpg and The Times of

London respectively.

Table 2: Categories of Early Nuclear Coverage for

The New York Times and The Times of London: 1896-1922

 

 

 

 

 

Category Discovery Pater Military Medical Price and Multiple Other
Supply

TheNew

$22. 12.8% .8% .8% 36.0% 11.3% 26.4% 12.0%
N=125

The

322;.“ 18.5% * * 31.5% 7.7% 29.2% 13.1%
NII130

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X3 - 4.83; d.f.- 6; Not 819.; 5' 8 None Sampled

The final major peak in the newspapers' coverage
occurred around 1921, when Marie Curie travelled to America,
prompting renewed interest in the topic of radium. Of the
118 stories listed in the 1921 New York Times Index, 69 were
primarily concerned with covering Marie Curie's American
tour, with most mentioning radium in a secondary manner.

The Times of London covered Curie's visit (10 of 32
indexed), but spread its coverage a bit more evenly among
radium and X-ray topics that year.

Differences in the amount of coverage given atomic

issues by the newspapers are most evident in the year

68
following Roentgen's 1895 discovery of X-rays, when 64
articles were indexed in The New York Timpg but only three
were listed in The Times of London. This lack of early
coverage in the London paper may in part be due to the
editorial turmoil it was undergoing during this time. This
will be further explored in the Qualitative Results.

Another break in patterns occurred in 1906 when Tmp
Timesfiof London gave a lot of coverage to the radium issue
with 33 items listed in their index, while The New York
Times's numbers dropped a bit to 11. The reason for this is
unclear, but might be because of the in-depth coverage Tpp
Times of London gave to The British Association of Sciences
meeting that summer, as well as the publishing of ongoing
theoretical debates in the pages of the London paper.

Of the six nuclear categories coded there were no
significant differences in the numbers coded for both
newspapers (See Table #2). Table 3 reveals that when the
stories coded as "multiple" were broken down and added back
into the other percentages, The Times of London had more of
its "multiple" coded pieces that contained both medical and
price and supply issues. The London paper's price and
supply totals went from 7.7% to 15.4% and medical stories
increased from 31.5% to 37.9% with the "multiple" categories
broken down, as opposed to a price and supply increase of
11.3% to 14.8% and a medical increase of 36% to 42.6% in Tpp
New York Times. This points to the greater practice of Tpp
Times of London to mention price and supply issues along

with other categories such as discovery and or medical,

69
while the New York paper more often devoted the whole story

to the price and supply issues it covered.

Table 3: Categories of Nuclear Coverage With Multiple
Category Types Broken Down and Added Back in for

The N93 York Times and The Times of London:

 

 

 

 

1896-1922
[ Discovery Power Military Medical Price and Other
Sawh'
The New
York
16.7% 4.3% 3.1% 42.6% 14.8% 18.5%
Times
113162
The Times
of London
“.182 25.8% 1.1% 3.8% 37.9% 15.4% 15.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x? a 7.83,- d.f. = 5; Not Sig.

The New York Times sample contained seven articles
discussing power uses of radium and/or X-rays while Tpp
Times of London sample contained only two. In terms of
military usage, the numbers coded were not significantly
different at five and seven articles for The New York Times
and The Times of London respectively.

Table 4 reveals that no significant differences were
found in sources used for the two newspapers, when looking
at categories in which a particular source type was counted
in both papers. The New York Timpp though did use more
governmental sources than the London paper, which itself

used a few more military sources. Science sources were the

70
most popular type used in both papers with medical sources

the second most popular.

Table 4: Mean Number of Source Types Per Story Used for

Early Nuclear Coverage in The New York Times and

 

The Times of London: 1896-1922

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New The Times
York Times of London
N=125 N=130
Source-Type Mean Per Story Mean Per Story
Science .776 .939
.Medical .608 .646
Industrial .056 .054
Industrial-Med. .008 .008
Industrial-Sci. .008 *
Military * .008
Military-Medical * .008
Military-Science .008 .008
Institutional .016 .008
Inst.-Med. .048 .077
Inst.-Sci. .016 .015
Governmental .088 .039

 

 

 

 

 

71

Table 4 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gov't-Med. .024 *

Gov't-Sci. .032 *
Gov't-Legal .016 .015
Layperson .032 ' .023
Legal * .008

Author .016 *
Publication .040 .069
Other .024 .023

 

 

 

 

 

t—test was not significantly different at p.< .05; * = None Sampled

The newspapers' primary use of academic and non-aligned
scientific and medical sources indicates that radium and X-
rays were for the most part being researched and used
outside of government and industrial-locations-—though
sources from these areas were present in the coverage. ng
New York Times's greater use of government sources may point
to greater activity by the U.S. government in new sciences
and technologies than by the government in England.

In contrast, The Times of London's greater use of
military sources may point to a greater pre-occupation of
the English government with using the new technology in its
military conflicts. The U.S. publications gave little
coverage to the military significance in the new science and
technology until World War I.

Table 5 reveals that no significant differences were

found in the number of different source types used per story

72
for the newspapers. It also reveals that 10% and 18% of the
stories in The Ney York Timpg and The Times of London
respectively cited no source, indicating a small inclination
to run stories without direct expert collaboration. This
calls to attention possible inaccuracies of these stories,
but doesn't diminish the fact that the majority of stories
coded were based to some extent on one or more experts'

opinion.

Table 5: Percent of Stories With No Source Cited and Those

with Multiple Source-Types Cited in The New York Times and

 

The Times of London: 1896-1922

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of Different The New York Times The Times of
Source Types Per N=125 Londbn
Story N=130
0 10% 18%
1 68% 65%
2 20% 15%
3 2% 2%

 

 

 

 

 

x2 5.47; d.f. = 3,‘ Not 819.; ‘ = None Sampled

There was a significant difference in the average
length of articles coded for the two newspapers. The New
York Times was found to have the longer average story length
with 80.6 lines compared to 50.4 lines for The Times of

London. Yet, longer length did not transfer over to an

73
appreciable difference in the number of sources per story in
The Ngy York Timpg. In fact its numbers were slightly lower
than those of The Times of London for both science and
medical sources.

Table 6 reveals that the two newspapers differed in the
number of story formats used. The Times of London relied
much more on speeches and released reports, while The New
York Times ran more editorials along with more hard news and
feature articles. Yet, while the story formats so widely
differed, the previous categories have demonstrated that the
topics and types of sources used in the newspapers were very

similar.

74
Table 6: Story Formats Coded for Early Nuclear Coverage in

The New York Times and The Times of London: 1896-1922

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New York Times The Times of

N=125 Londbn

N=130

Article Format Percent Percent
Article/Story 82% 62%
Editorial 8% 2%

Letter to The

Editor 1% 13%
Report/Speech 8% 18%
Abstract 1% 5%

 

 

 

 

 

)6 a 29.03; a.:. = s; p.< .001

In terms of running art with their stories, The New
York Times had six pieces coded with art compared to one in
The Times of London. The New York Timps also ran four
pieces with more than one photo and/or line art, while no
such combinations were coded for the London paper. This
fits with the London paper's more conservative editorial

approach to presenting news.

Comparison of Tone for The Two Newspapers
The second research question sought to compare the tone

of the two papers' coverage. Tables 7, 8, and 9 indicate

75
that the only significant difference in the coded
percentages between the newspapers came under headline tone.
The New York Timpp possessed more varied tone in their
headlines with 26.4% positive, 16% negative and just 57.6%
neutral compared to 83.8% neutral headlines found in Tpp

Times of London.

Table 7: Headline Tones of Early Nuclear Coverage in

The New York Times and The Times of London: 1896-1922

 

 

 

 

 

Positive Neutral Negative

Tone Tone Tone
The New Ybrk
Times 26.4% 57.6% 16.0%
N=125
The Times of
London 9.3% 83.8% 6.9%
N=130

 

 

 

 

 

 

)6 = 21.45; d.f. = 2; p.<.001

76

Table 8: Lead Tones of Early Nuclear Coverage in

 

 

 

 

 

The New York Times and The Times of London: 1896-1922
Positive Neutral Negative
Tone Tone Tone
The New York
Times 32.8% 57.6% 9.6%
N=125
The Times of
Londbn 23.8% 66.2% 10.0%
N=130

 

 

 

 

 

x1 = 2.57; d.f. = 2; Not Sig.

Table 9: Story Tones of Early Nuclear Coverage in The New

 

 

 

 

 

York Times and The Times of London: 1896-1922
Positive Neutral Negative

Tone Tone Tone

The New York

Times 40.0% 51.2% 8.8%

N=125

The Times of

London 37.7% 53.8% 8.5%

N=130

 

 

 

 

 

xz - .18; d.f. a 2.- Not Sig.

 

 

77

Why the difference in the headline tones of the
newspapers did not carry over into the lead and story tones
is hard to answer, but part of the answer might relate to
differing editorial practices of the papers. The Times of
London was the more conservative of the two. It did not add
photography until after 1908, with the first nuclear related
photo not coded until 1921, as opposed to 1896 in The New
York Times. This conservative nature fits with The Times of
London's greater use of neutral headlines even though the
leads and stories that followed contained a broader range of
images.

In contrast, the more modern editorial practices of the
New York paper might have focused on introducing their
stories with a little more tonal variety to attract readers.
Evidence for this practice is that the paper's 16% negative
tone for headlines is greater than both its 9.6% negative
lead tone and 8.8% negative story tone (See Tables #7, #8, &
#9).

Still, the overall tone of both newspapers' articles
was much more likely to be neutral or positive, with 91.2%
and 91.5% of the stories in The New York Times and The Times
of London respectively found in these two tonal ranges.
These numbers are largely in line with Weart's findings in
his analysis of headlines in the Reademg' Guide to
Periodical Literature. Yet, he found that the headlines
from 1900 to 1940 were about 75% neutral, while this study
found a wide range--from closer to 58% for The New York

Times to 84% for The Times of London--during the first half

78
of this period. This difference combined with the variance
in lead and story tone from that of the headlines in the
newspapers indicates that headlines are not an entirely
accurate representation of the images presented in early
nuclear coverage. Weart realized this, and thus also
analyzed books and film from this period, but still the
point remains that headlines do not accurately reflect the
images presented in leads and stories.1

Weart also pointed out that he found very little
negative coverage before the mid-205, while this study
largely concurs with that, negative coverage was found in
the newspapers from the very beginning, and was present
throughout this early period. The New York Timpp ran two
negative pieces as early as 1897, along with only one
positive. These negative stories talked of harm caused by
X-rays. By contrast, negative pieces were absent from Tpg
Timps of London until 1905. The Times of London ran another
negative story in 1906 and peaked its negative coverage from
1908 to 1911, with 24% of its coverage being negative over
this three year period (See Table #1).

The New York Times's peak period for covering the
dangers of radium and X-rays came just after this period in
the years 1912 to 1914, with 12% of its coverage being
negative during this time. Along with these negatively
coded stories The New York Timgg ran seven neutral stories
that contained both good and bad aspects of atomic science
and technology.

The negative coverage was for the most part due to

79
deaths of X-ray workers by X-ray induced cancer. Why the
coverage of this negative aspect of X-ray use peaked at
different time periods in the newspapers is not readily
answerable. The Times of London's coverage did increase
again, however, from 1912 to 1914 along with the New York
newspaper. During this time, 12 of the coded stories from
the papers contained both good and bad aspects concerning
radium and X-rays. It was by far the period with the most
coverage given the debate over the use, nature and supply of
X-rays and radium in the two newspapers for the time period

sampled.

Comparison of Science and Nature

The third question concerned a comparison of the
pattern of coverage for Nature and Science. Figure 3 and
Table 10 show that both Nature's and Science's coverage of
atomic issues were continuous through out the period
studied. Nature carried by far the larger number of nuclear
pieces with 1943 indexed pieces compared to 139 in Science.
While the magnitude of coverage was much greater in Nature
than in Science, both journals' coverage peaked in 1896,
following Roentgen's late-1895 discovery. That year Nature
ran 303 pieces on X-rays while Science ran 50. Table 10
shows that this was by far the most coverage given any
nuclear discovery in one year by Science during the sample
period, with 1914 being the next highest year with ten
indexed articles. Nature's second most covered year for

atomic issues was 1904, with 196 pieces counted in the

80
index.

Coverage of the Curies' 1898 discovery of radium and
polonium was low in Nature, with coverage dropping to 53
pieces (See Figure #3). The coverage of radium didn't
really peak in the English journal until 1903-1904 with 124
and 196 indexed stories. Science covered the story with six
indexed stories in 1900 and again peaked at six in 1903,
then its coverage dropped to two in 1904. For Science the
six stories in 1900 are a bit of a scoop on Nature, because

of the fewer stories it normally ran.

81

mes

Number of Star

3o

 

 

 

 

 

s

e

s /\ _
(é
o - - - - - - - . -El\ixwo/l/i\i\7i\wl

:elleo_:1“l:a82:52:;:gegee
<mm4m Ammo so Homm

4 seem + egg

wwocuo w“ eoemw zcaoon on Hscoxoa mnonwom we

mowosoo use 2mwcno" emomruo-

82
Table 10: Sampled Story Tone of Early Nuclear Coverage for

Science and Nature: 1896—1922

 

 

Science Na ture
N262 N=l74

 

 

Tone I Pos. Neut. Neg. Pos. Neut. I Neg.
1896 10 23

 

1897

 

1898

 

1899

 

1900

 

1901

 

1902

WWwaQ

 

1903

 

 

1904

 

1905

 

1906

 

1907

 

OOWHHOOOOONN-fi

 

1909

’—l

 

1910

 

IQO

1911

 

1912

H

 

1913

 

1914

 

1915

 

1916

 

1917

 

1918

 

 

1919

 

1920

 

 

 

 

 

 

2
0
l
1
l
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
1908 O
O
0
0
O
1
1
2
0
0
0
l
2
1

 

H 3 <3 <3 <3 c: c: c> c> 3 <3 c> c> 3 <3 <3 rd :3 c: c> 0 <3 <3 :3 c: o

 

3
0
0
2
0
O
0
1
O
l
2
2
2
l
1
2
1
3
l
2
l
2
2
0
0

NNONI—‘r—‘NOH

1921

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

Table 10 (cont'd)

 

l 4 0

 

 

 

29 144 1

Coverage in both journals peaked again in 1909. Most
of the stories coded for each periodical that year were
found in the discovery category with 100% and 88% for
Science and Nature respectively. Science increased its
coverage again in the years 1913-1915, with four of its
coded stories falling under discovery, two medical and three
price and supply. Nature's coverage, though, actually fell
during that three year period, and never again reached the
1909 peak of 121 indexed pieces. The decreasing amount of
nuclear stories in Nature during this later period may be
due in part to World War I, but another factor hinted at in
some of the articles was the continuing increase in the
amount of specialized science journals covering the nuclear
topic in Europe. The presence of these other journals might
have led Nature to decrease its coverage of nuclear issues
over time, as it sought to redefine its market niche. The
' presence and effect of new journals will be more fully
explored under Qualitative Results. Both journals had
another major coverage peak in 1921-22--a period of major
breakthroughs in atom smashing and when Marie Curie sailed
the Atlantic to tour North America.

A significant difference was found in the types of
nuclear categories covered in the two journals. Nature had
69.0% of its stories devoted solely to discovery, while

Science's discovery articles made up 51.6% of its coverage.

84

Table 11 shows the contrast: Science contained more price
and supply and "other" pieces with 6.5% and 11.3% of its
coverage devoted to them as opposed to 2.9% and 6.3% in

Nature.

Table 11: Categories of Early Nuclear Coverage for

Science and Nature: 1896-1922

 

 

 

Discovery M ' union-y Medical Price and Multiple other
Supply
sawm- 51.6% 3.2% * 6.5% 6.5% 21.0% 11.3%
N-62
mm- 69.0% * * 7.5% 2.9% 14.4% 6.3%
N=174

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X’ :- 12.07; d.f. I 6; p.<.035; * = None Sampled

The difference in story content resulted in part from
Nature's tendency to run more laboratory reports and follow
up experiments, while Science--published in the U.S., where
large supplies of uranium ore were being found--ran more
stories about supply issues. Science also covered a
slightly broader range of topic categories than Nature,
however, overall Nature presented many more nuclear stories.
Table 12 reveals that the gap in price and supply stories
closed when the multiple stories were broken down and added

into the specific categories.

 

85

Table 12: Categories of Early Nuclear Coverage With Multiple

Categories Broken Down and Added Back In

for Science and Nature: 1896-1922

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discovery Power Military Medical Price and other
Supply
afiflw- 54.4% 5.1% 2.5% 8.9% 8.9% 20.2%
N") 9
than“ 67.8% * 1.5% 12.2% 6.8% 11.7%
N=2 0 5

 

 

 

X2 - 16.34; d.f. = 5; p.<.01; * = None Sampled

A further contrast is revealed in Table 13,
Science using significantly more science sources
in its stories than Nature, with a mean of 3.951
to 2.373, even though Nature more frequently ran
about discovery issues.

The differences in the number of scientific

with
on average
as opposed

stories

SOUI‘CBS

used is related to Nature's use of more abstracts as opposed

to Science's use of more reports and articles.

Science's

use of longer story formats allowed for the inclusion of

more sources per story. A significant difference was found

in the length of the stories in the two journals,

with 208

lines per story found in Science and 57 lines found in

Nature.

86

Table 13: Mean Number of Source Types Per Story Used for

Early Nuclear Coverage in Science and Nature: 1896-1922

 

Science

N=62

Nature

N=174

 

Source-Type

Mean Per Story

Mean Per Story

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science 3.951A 2.373A
Medical .194 .115
Industrial .032 .012
Industrial-Med. * *
Industrial-Sci. * *
Military * .012
Military-Medical * *
Military-Science * *
Institutional * .012
Inst.-Med. * .006
Inst.-Sci. * *
Governmental .016 .006
Gov't-Med. * *
Gov't-Sci. .226 *
Gov't-Legal * *
Layperson .048 .006

 

 

 

 

87

Table 13 (Cont'd)

 

 

 

 

Legal * 4 I

Author * *
Publication .145 .046

Other * *

 

 

 

 

 

A = t-test revealed Sig. Diff at p. (.05; 0 = None Sampled

Most of the other source categories, including medical
sources, were significantly different in the two journals.
The length discrepancy used to help explain the difference
found in science sources can also explain the similar
numbers of medical sources--the majority of medical pieces
coded in Science were shorter than its science pieces, thus
providing further proof that the differences in the number
of sources is due to the longer stories in Science.

Many of the source categories could not be individually
compared because of lack of representation in one or more of
the periodicals. One noteworthy difference, however, was
the large use of governmental science sources in Science,
with .226 sources per story as opposed to none found in
Nature (See Table #13). This percentage is the second
largest found in both publications after academic and non-
aligned scientists. It is even greater than that found for
medical sources. Additionally, under non-specific
governmental sources a mean of .016 was found for Science as
Opposed to .006 for Nature. This also points to an

increased use of governmental sources by Science over

Nature. This difference may be explained in part by the

greater coverage in Science of the price and supply issues

88

in the U.S.; much of this coverage cited governmental

sources .

This different use of sources is also seen in Table 14
when looking at the percentages of stories with two or more
source types. Science ran 31% of its stories with more than

one source type as compared to Nature's 7%.

Table 14: Percent of Stories With No Source Cited and Those

with Multiple Source-Types Cited in Science

and Nature: 1896-1922

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of Different Science Nature
Source Types Per N=62 N=174
Story
0 * 1%
1 69% 92%
2 20% 6%
3 11% 1%

 

X2 = 28.14; d.f. = 3; p. < .001; * = None Sampled

As mentioned previously, these coverage differences in
part may be explained by the different styles of the two

journals. Table 15 shows that 53% of the stories coded from

Nature were abstracts of published pieces from other

 

89
journals or sources, while only 15% of Science's pieces were
in this format. Abstracts were usually less than 20 lines
and often contained no more than three cited sources.
Additionally, a larger percentage of Science's pieces were
either articles or transcripts of speeches and lectures
(which also tended to be lengthy) than were Nature's, with

25% to 6% respectively.

Table 15: Story Formats Coded for Early Nuclear Coverage in

Science and Nature: 1896-1922

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science Nature
N=62 N=174
Story Format Percent Percent
Article/Story 44% 16%
Editorial 0% 1%
Letter to The
Editor 16% 24%
Report/Speech 25% 6%
Abstract 15% 53%

 

 

 

 

 

X2 = 53.61; d.f. a 4; p. < .001

90
Comparison of Tone of Coverage for The Two Journals
Table 16 shows that a significant difference was found

in the tone of the nuclear stories in the two journals.

Table 16: Story Tones for Early Nuclear Coverage in

Science and Nature: 1896-1922

 

 

 

Positive Neutral Negative
Tone Tone Tone
Science 30.6% 64.6% 4.8%
N=62
Nature 16.8% 82.6% 0.6%
N=174

 

 

 

 

 

 

X’ a: 12.07; d.f. :- 2; p.<.004

Science was found to have a more diverse tone with
30.6% positive pieces, 64.6% neutral and 4.8% negative.
Nature was much more neutral with 82.6% of its stories
falling in that tonal area and 16.8% falling in the positive
tonal range, just .6% were found to be negative. Some of
this difference can again be explained by the different
editorial styles of the two journals, with Nature running
more short abstracts and Science more reprints of speeches--
longer pieces with more room for personal opinion.

Science clearly presented a higher percentage of its
pieces containing favorable images of atomic issues, while
Nature remained closer to the scientific credo of

objectivity in presentation of results and experimental

91
progress. The flipside of this in terms of balance of
coverage is that along with the more positive pieces Science
also presented more negative articles than did Nature.
Coverage balance within each journals' articles will be more

fully analyzed in the Qualitative Results.

Comparison Among all Four Periodicals

The fifth question asked concerned the comparison of
the pattern and tone of coverage for each of the four
periodicals studied. Early coverage of the X-ray discovery
and the subsequent experiments were heavy in three of the
four periodicals. The New York Timpg ran 86 articles from
1896 to 1898 about the phenomena, Science ran 59, Nature ran
469, while The Times of London ran only seven articles. The
year 1896 had by far the most articles listed in the
journals for the nuclear issue, but the newspapers' coverage
did not peak until 1914 (see Figures #1 & #3).

This later newspaper peak can be explained in part by
the increased amount of medical stories found during this
time, as opposed to the earlier focus on discovery issues--
issues which continued to better fit the journals' focus
(See Tables #2, #3, #11 and #12). Figures 1 and Table 1
reveal that the newspaper coverage of nuclear issues
continuously evolved during the period studied, with 1913-
1915 being the years when debate over its use was most
varied and prevalent. Science too was found to have more
coverage during this period than Nature. Finally, all four

periodicals shared coverage peaks when Marie Curie travelled

92
to North America in 1921.

In addition to having significantly different
percentages of stories devoted solely to medical and science
stories, the newspapers also carried more military, price
and supply, "multiple" and "other" stories than the journals
(See Tables #2, #3, #11 and #12). This points to a greater
diversity of categories covered in the newspapers as opposed
to the journals, with Science being the more diverse of the
two journals.

A significantly greater number of scientific sources
per story was found in the journals than in the newspapers,
which contained more medical sources (See Table #4 & #13).
The newspapers also used significantly more industrial and
military sources than did the journals, another indicator of
more diverse coverage.

These numbers also coincide with the numbers found
concerning medical and science categories in the respective
periodicals (See Tables #2, #3, #11, & #12). Nature's use
of fewer medical sources follows along with its running of
fewer medical stories as well as its citing of fewer
different source types per article, with 93% of its pieces
citing only one source type (See Table #5 & #14). The
picture concerning governmental sources is more complicated.

While The New York Timpp used more governmental
medical, governmental legal and non-aligned governmental
sources than its home-country's journal, Science, it used
fewer governmental science sources. In contrast, while Tpg

Times of London used more governmental legal sources, no

93
significant difference was found between the number of non-
aligned governmental sources it used as opposed to those
cited in its home-country's journal, Nature. While the
reasons for these observed differences are not readily
apparent, it is obvious that the U.S. publications relied
more on governmental experts than did the English
publications.

Another difference between the publications was that
while no significant difference was found between the length
of stories in Nature and Tpquimes of London, a difference
was found between their length and that of both The New York
Timgg and Science, which also differed among themselves.
Length differences are attributed to editorial differences
as opposed to differences in the perceived editorial
importance of nuclear issues.

Nature's predominately neutral coverage caused its
range of tone to be significantly smaller than The Times of
London's, while no significant difference was found between
the overall tone of atomic related stories in Science and
The New York Times. This again highlights the more diverse
tonal coverage found in Science's pieces during the period
studied. The tone of its images were closer to that of two
elite newspapers of its time than the science journal it was
modeled after.

This is just one example of the differences found
between journals. Some of these differences, such as
reliance on certain source types and certain categories

covered, can be seen to be influenced by location, but the

94
tonal difference found between Nature and Science is
attributed to the editorial style of the journals and in
part indicates the tendency of Science to run stories that
carried a broader range of tones concerning nuclear issues.
The New York Times's coverage likewise was seen to be
continuously more broad in the tone and categories covered
than was that of The Times of London.

Coverage of nuclear issues during this period in all
publications were mostly neutral and positive in tone, but
voices of caution and images of danger were also
continuously present in the media. The majority of the
negative articles coded in the publications fell in the
category of medical news. Of the 170 medical stories coded
about 11% were found to be negative. The negative medical
articles dealt mostly with radiation damage and cancers.

The subtleties of the patterns and tones used to
present nuclear issues will be fleshed out in the
Qualitative Results, through assessment of the metaphors and

applications of early nuclear science.

95

Chapter Five
Notes

1. Weart, p. 53.

CHAPTER SIX

QUALITATIVE RESULTS

In discussing most scientific discoveries, the terms
science and technology overlap. It is often hard to separate
the two areas, though many have tried. In a broad sense,
science can be said to be the continuous attempt to explain
natural phenomena using methods of observation, experiment and
hypothesis testing, replication of results and the continuous
production of new ideas and experiments.1 Technology can be
thought of as the applied use of this knowledge through
equipment, utensils, tools and devices (technics). These
technics or technologies are often used to manipulate the
environment to meet perceived human needs. But it is often
not so easy to differentiate between the steps taken by
science and technology. In an attempt to do so one technology
historian came up with a definition of technology "as that.
research where the main product is not a paper, but instead
a machine, a drug, a product, or a process of some sort."2

An interweaving of the continuous efforts of nuclear
science and the production of resulting technics was found to
be constant and almost simultaneous in this study. The first
article coded from The New York Time_s was a front page article

from February 7, 1896, discussing Roentgen’s X-rays. The lead

96

97
stated that after hurried attempts at Princeton to reproduce
Roentgen’s data, experiments have "yielded some very
interesting results."3

It was clear from the article that the actual nature or
effect of the rays was still a mystery, but it went on to
quote a Princeton professor about "the practical application
of this great discovery" in both the medical and industrial
fields. Already the line between theoretical science on paper
and applied technology in practice had been crossed with this
article, of which almost.80 percent was direct.quotations from
the professor, .Along with applications of the technology, the
professor discussed such involved scientific topics as the
differences of permeability of varied substances to the new
rays, as well as discussing the debate over the wave nature
of light.

The next coded New York Times article, from February 12,
1896, directly quoted the famous American inventor Thomas
Edison concerning his experiences with the new rays. It too
was a very technical piece that discussed the difficulties in
getting the proper equipment to duplicate Roentgen’s process.
It was followed in the sample by two more articles in which
Edison further explained his accomplishments in getting the
rays to work, as well as his continued desire for better
equipment.“

Yet, great inventors were not the only ones getting in
on the new discovery at this early date. A New York Times

piece, from March 21, 1896, told of how a Madison Square

98
Garden electrician had built an X-ray apparatus, which he used
to take a picture of shotgun pellets in the hand of a man, who
had accidentally shot himself. The possibilities and
usefulness of the new technology were clearly being quickly
explored by amateur and professional scientists alike. This
wide spread, hands on exploration of the new and powerful
technology can be seen as an early avenue of popularization.S
The lead from a New York Times Sunday magazine article
on September 6, 1896, summarized the great interest and hope
aroused by Roentgen’s discovery:
While some discoveries of a purely scientific character
appeal only to a limited class, others broadly affect
the life and happiness of the human race and thus become
of universal importance. The discovery of Prof. Roentgen
is unique in that it interests alike the scientific and
non-scientific intelligent minds of all countries. To the
world of science it suggests new problems as to the
constitution of matter and the subtleties of electricity,
while to the race at large it opens up a new means of
diagnosis and relief of suffering and disease.
Immediately, the new science and technology were
perceived as interesting by both scientists and non—
scientists and were being looked to as a way of reducing human
suffering. The introductory article on Roentgen’s discovery
in The Times of London’s sample, dated February 28, 1896,
spoke of the use of Roentgen’s rays in aiding medical
diagnosis. Though just 26 lines long compared to the 160
lines of the first New York Times piece, it too showed that
the discovery had already crossed from the laboratory to

application in everyday life. The article, which originated

in Montreal, Canada, told of how members of McGill University

99

had used a cathode ray tube, following Roentgen’s methods, to
help in the extraction of a bullet from a man’s leg. The
article relayed that the university, "can boast.of perhaps the
first [surgical use] in America, and probably that in which
the greatest thickness of tissue has been so far penetrated."7

X-ray technology and advancement of its use was quickly
being presented in the language of competition and prize-
winning. The race was on to reap the fame from controlling
its power. At the same time though, scientists were also
caught up in more mundane and less heralded debates such as
those over proper nomenclature. A Times of London letter to
the editor from March 10, 1896, focused on this topic of
choosing the proper name for the new energy rays. The author
talked of dropping the name "photography" from the X-ray
process and instead calling it "scotography," to highlight the
difference between rays of visible light and the rays that
form X-ray images.8

Comparing the content of these early articles sampled in

each newspaper reveals that the articles in The New York

Times, in using many direct quotes from scientists, contained

 

much more detailed scientific analysis of X-ray subjects than
did the London paper’s pieces. Yet the letter-to-the-editor
carried in The Times of London did introduce a bit of the
early scientific debate going on concerning the mystery rays.
While the use of a large number of direct quotes from experts
in The New York Times helped to better present the more

technical aspects of the science and technology, it also

100
limited the number of points of view presented. In the
articles with a lot of direct quotes, much of it came from
only one or two scientists.

This trend of using direct quotes from one or two
scientists also points to the limited ability of these early
journalists to synthesize and paraphrase the new scientific
material. Yet, at the same time it allows them to somewhat
escape the often heard charge that their stories about
scientists’ work were misleading and incorrect. Because of
their practice of directly quoting the scientists, it is hard
to say that the journalists did not accurately relay what was
going on in the laboratory or medical office. Though the use
of fewer sources did limit the number of scientific voices
heard from.

Even with its early practice of using fewer sources, The

 

New York Times’s coverage was much more broad and
comprehensive concerning the nuclear issues than London’s
elite paper right up until 1903, when the number of articles
covering nuclear issues in The Times of London jumped to 27,
up from one the year before.

A Times of London article from January 14, 1897, shows
that the paper’s limited coverage was not due to a lack of
knowledge of the importance of Roentgen’s discovery, but
rather points to a more cautious approach to the topic--a more
"wait and see" attitude than was present in its New York
counterpart. The article headed, "Science in 1896," began

with the statement, "The chief interests in pure as

101
distinguished from applied electrical science during the year
1896 have centered round the important discovery which
Professor W. K. Roentgen, of Wurzburg, announced at the

beginning of the year."9

The article ‘went on to say,
"Although a torrent of scientific literature has been poured
out since the announcement of that discovery and having those
rays for its subject, and although an army of investigators
have attacked the subject, it can hardly be said that very
much has been added to the original facts discovered by

Roentgen...."10

Continuing with this wait and see approach,
the piece ended with, "It is not at all improbable that the
so-called X radiation is a complex thing, and that much
research will be necessary before:we thoroughly understand the

method of its propagation."11

It is not clear why the London
paper did not carry more of this early flood of X-ray stories,
but it is clear that many continued to explore the complex

mystery.

First Coverage of Roentgen’s Mystery Rays
in Science and Nature
The early, more cautious attitude found in The Times of
London was somewhat similar to the coverage found in Science
and Nature. The first pieces on Roentgen’s discovery in the
two science journals were printed two to three weeks before
the papers picked up on the topic. The introductory Science
article, from January 24, 1896, simply spoke of the ray’s

ability to penetrate certain substances and mentioned the

102

trustworthy reputation of Roentgen, saying, "any experiments
published by him.would be accepted without hesitation." This
peer trust of results based on an investigator’s scientific
reputation was also seen in the introductory pieces covering
the Curies’ revelations about radium and polonium. It was as
if in<each.of'these revolutionary discoveries, the journalists
and scientists who wrote about them had satisfied their
initial skepticism by looking to who in the scientific world
had.made such startling claims, thereby basing believable fact
upon a researcher’s reputation until time passed to allow his
experiments and data to be reproduced.12

Another trend illustrated in this introductory Science
article was that it opened.by saying that the initial Roentgen
story had first been reported in papers such as the Vienna
Presse and the London Standard. This trend of using
newspapers as initial sources was also seen in a piece dated
June 26, 1896, as well as one from November 19, 1897. The
1896 piece began, "The daily papers contain several
communications regarding reputed anticipations of the X-rays
sufficiently curious to deserve repetition." It cited
information from the Grand Rapids Herald, Mechanics Mirror,
Scientific American and the Daily News.13

The Science article from November 1897 told of how the
only two exhibitions mentioned by The Times of London, after
a recent meeting of the British Roentgen Society in London,
were both from America. One exhibit was a full-size, X-ray

picture of a woman’s skeleton, and the other was an X-ray

103
apparatus that used a special Tesla-built tube, which could

create an X-ray image from 50 feet away.“

Science had quoted
The Times of London’s description--the bottom paragraph of a
half page article--in full. Clearly, transfer of early atomic
knowledge flowed among publications and across oceans.1S

The initial Nature article concerning Roentgen’s rays
was printed.on.January 16, 1896, a week earlier than the brief
Science piece--to which it was quite similar. The second
articles coded from both journals were identical. They were
reprints of Roentgen’s initial article "On A New Kind of
Rays." Nature had reprinted the article from the German
journal, Sitgungsberichte der Wurzburger Physik-medic.

Gesellschaft, which ran the piece in 1895.16

Science reprinted
the translated article from Nature on February 14, 1896.17
This trail of publications gives further indication of how
science news jumped from source to source at the turn of the
century. It also points to the place on the academic chain
in which American scientists and science journals fell in the
field of atomic physics during this early period.

Roentgen’s article related that the new rays were not
observable to the eye, like those of visible light, nor hot
like infrared rays, nor like the powerful ultraviolet rays
from the sun. At the end of his article, Roentgen followed
proper research etiquette and stated that more experiments
were needed to better understand just how these rays traveled

through the ether. The article also contained a picture of

an X-rayed hand, in which the bones could be clearly seen

104
along with a large wedding band. Roentgen himself had

initiated the use of his discovery to explore the human body.

Deeper Analysis of the Early Coverage
Concerning the Medical Use of x-rays

Articles in all four publications during this early
period, from 1896 to 1902, increasingly dealt with both the
medical and industrial benefits of the mysterious rays and
the device that produced them. A New York Times article from
June 27, 1897, talked of how the "invisible rays will in the
future play an important part in the lighting of our houses
and streets." The same article went on to state that when
"the human body has been lighted up with them, it has been
possible to find fragments of glass, needles, bullets inside
it, and the surgeon seeing has been able to remove them."18

A positively coded New York.Times front-page article from
November 2, 1901, was headlined:

X-rays USED AS A REMEDY FOR CANCER

-Chicago Doctor Declares Roentgen

Light is a germicide.
-permanent cure said to have been effected
in the case of Mrs. Orrin W. Potter.

Mrs. Potter had received X-ray dosages every other day for
three months as treatment for breast cancer. The doctor
treating her was adamant about the success of his treatment
and said, "I believe this treatment is an absolute cure for
all forms of cancer." He went on to explain his theory that

X-rays kill the cancer-germ and then stimulate glandular

action for new cell growth. True to the pattern already

105
noted, only one source was cited for this story, 85 percent
consisting of direct quotes from the treating doctor.19
The Times of London ran a X-ray medical story that
originated in Vienna on April 19, 1898, which told of how a
doctor had experimentally proven that X-rays could control

lupus and remove superfluous hair.20

Another piece, from
February 8, 1901, echoed X-rays’ medical importance, but this
time they had been used to help save the wounded on the
battlefield. The article relayed how Lt. F. Bruce, R.A.M.C.
had set up his battery powered X-ray apparatus, while under
fire during the "Siege of Ladysmith" in the Boer War in South
Africa. In the course of the battle, Bruce X-rayed over 200
wounded, some who had been hit with exploding bullets. When
the apparatus’s batteries began to lose power, he ingeniously
hooked up a recharging dynamo to the mill-shaft at the local
flour mill. At the end of the article, Bruce suggested
improving the appartatus’s usefulness by building a better
operating table, with ‘which X-rays could be taken from
beneath, and by including an oil motor with it to power the
dynamo.21

During this early period, much of the atomic coverage was
filled with similar amazing stories of the X-ray’s usefulness,
but at the same time a few stories were also being run that
dealt with the adverse effects that the unknown rays could
have upon the human body. The first negative story coded in

any of the publications was a New York Times article from

April 27, 1897. It relayed the story of a man who wanted to

106

sue his doctor for negligence after his broken leg had healed
shorter than the other. Wanting to use the new X-ray
technology to prove his case, he had unsuccessfully tried four
times to get an X-ray of the mended spot, and so, on the fifth
time, had exposed his leg to the high energy rays for almost
two hours. Shortly thereafter, the area that.had received.the
radiation became.gangrenous.and.doctors stated.that the flesh,
nerves and ligaments of the area had been totally destroyed.22

The NeyyYork Times followed this piece with an editorial
on July 31, 1897, that stated, "After the courts have awarded
heavy money damages in.a few<cases of injury and disfigurement
by the X ray, the manipulators of that mysterious energy will
probably employ the precautions which experience has already
shown to be necessary," ‘The.article mentioned the "lamentable
case of Miss Macdonald," and relayed Tesla’s explanation that
X-rays burn in much the same manner as a red hot stove, and
thus operators who put the source of the rays too near their
patients will severely burn them. While noting that Tesla’s
explanation may or may not hold for the mysterious rays, it
ended by stating that, "The.protection.of patients against the
dangerous emanations, whatever its nature may be, is the
practical duty of the X ray operator."23

The editorial noting the danger of the mysterious rays
was followed in The New York Timpp by a brief 12 line article
on January 2, 1898, headed THE x RAY MADE Innocuous,“ and on

November 1, 1902, by an article headed,

107
SUIT AGAINST DENTISTS FAILS.

They Contended That They Were Not

Responsible for X Ray Examination.ZS

The November article relayed the court case of Josephine
McDonald, who presumably was the woman mentioned in the
previous editorial, cautioning X-ray practitioners. McDonald
was denied the $50,000 in damages she had sued her dentists
for, because they had successfully argued that they had mearly
watched the X-ray expert perform the procedure on her, to see
if it would help her unhealthy jawbone. McDonald had sued
because her face had been severely damaged during the
treatment and her hair had subsequently fallen out.26

A month and a half later, The New York Times ran a
related article that told of the establishment of the office
of X-ray Expert and Electrical Diagnostician of the Law
Department of Chicago. The office was set up to handle the
"numerous attempts at fraud through the evidence of X-ray and
electrical so-called ‘experts’ in claims against the city for
personal injuries."27

An early cautionary article toward X-rays was also coded
from The Times of London. 'The article was written on November
3, 1900, after a meeting of the Roentgen Society. It relayed
a speaker’s statement that "they had it on the authority of
the editor of one of the leading medical journals that the
result of the use of the rays in fractures had been over-
estimated, and distinguished physicians had on more than one

occasion of late given expression to regrets about their

limited value in medicine." This statement seems to follow

108
the same cautionary tone found in the "Science in 1896" piece
previously discussed, but it does go on to say, that

it was difficult to see what could give rise to

extreme disappointment unless it were too high an

estimate and expectation at the beginning of what

was a very recent, but happily progressive, science.

It should be remembered that when the microscope was

first introduced into clinical work too much was

expected of it.28

The tone of the piece is also similar to others found in
this early grouping. It began cautionary, even negatively,
but moved on to the positive and beneficial aspects of X-
rays. This seems to exemplify the tone of The Times of
London’s articles from this early period. In contrast, The
Ngngork Times’s coverage, true to its overall tonal pattern,
presented both more outright positive and negative images
right from the start. Admittedly, just the fact that The New
York Times covered this early period with 96 stories to 16
stories for The Times of London (See Figure #1) may allow for
this early similarity to its overall tonal pattern.

It is not totally clear why The Times of London didn’t
give more coverage to the early discoveries related to atomic
issues. Much of it may have to do with the crisis in the head
office that was occurring at that time-~a period of decreasing
circulation along with the introduction of competition from
the penny press. Yet, at the same time the newspaper was
spending a lot of money to maintain "the finest foreign news
service in the world." Whatever the reasons for the limited

early nuclear coverage, it is clear that many other

publications, including the other three in this study, were

109
interested in presenting atomic issues to their readers:29
Still, this hopeful.1im§§ of London article (November 3,
1900) did mention the great interest surrounding the use of
the X-ray apparatus during”wartime and is in many ways similar
to other coded articles from the paper during this period.
It originated from a Roentgen Society, of which many were
established throughout the world shortly after the discovery.
England’s was among the first, and its purpose was to help
advance the understanding and implementation of the mysterious
rays. IMany of the early stories in the London paper
originated from lectures or demonstrations at tflua Roentgen
Society. The increasing presence of specialized journals was
noted in this piece. It commented about the creation of
scientific and medical journals through out the world
dedicated to reporting material on continuing investigations
with X-rays. This publication trend was first noted by a
Times of London piece from 1897, which stated that even at
that early date "three journals had been established for the
publications of observations and discoveries connected with

Roentgen rays, and every month saw formidable additions made

to the literature of the new science.“30

Comparison of Early Coverage of X-rays:
Journals vs. Newspapers
Most of the nuclear articles written in the journals
focused on scientific and discovery issues, but Nature did

run an article dedicated solely to the medical use of X-rays

110

as early as February 6, 1896. The article exemplified two
trends already mentioned: it quoted material from another
journal of the time as well as a scientist from another
country. The article cited the British Medical Journal as
stating that "Medical science seems likely to benefit much by
the application of Prof. Roentgen’s discovery." It then added
an.Austrian scientist's account of taking a clear and precise
X-ray of the damage caused by a revolver shot through a man's
hand.31

0n the same page as this positive, medical story was a
short note by Nature’s editor, William Lockyer, in which he
described an X-ray photo of a hand, highlighting the visible
differences in appearance of bone, gold and glass in the X-
ray. This was the only piece coded where it was possible to
identify one of the publications’ editorial staff as a*writer,
and points both to Lockyer’s close attention to the material
in his journal and to the editorial importance given the new
discovery . 32

In regards to atomic related art, the two journals and
The New York Times published more photos and line graphs of
the early X-ray discoveries than did The Times of London.
This in part is due to the more conservative publishing
practices of the London paper that have already been noted.
The paper did not modernize its presses or introduce the
picture page until after Northcliffe purchased it in 1908.

Similar to Nature, the first solely medical related

article in Science appeared early in 1896. The piece stated:

111

The manifold uses to which Roentgen’s discovery may

be applied in medicine are so obvious that it is

even now questionable whether a surgeon would be

morally justified in performing a certain class of

operation without having first seen pictured by

these rays the field of his work, a map, as it were

of the unknown country he is to explore.

This article, in raising the question of ethical use of
the X-ray technology, reads much like The New York Times’s
editorial that discussed the need for X-ray operators to

3" While

protect their patients from any possible danger.
ethical use is being offered here in opposing situations, it
does indicate that some saw incorporation of the powerful new
device as needing knowledgeable caution.

Three more generalizable points were also found in this
Science medical article. The first is that it ran 189 lines,
which fits with the finding that Science had the longest
average story length of the publications analyzed. Secondly,
it also contained eight medical, one newspaper and four
scientific sources, true to the findings that on average the
two journals used more science sources per article than the
newspapers--the American journal containing more stories with
three or more source types (See Tables #5 & #14). Finally,
the article was written by a scientist as were 41% of the
journals’ articles, compared to just 5% for the newspapers.

While medical pieces were found early on in both
journals, Nature contained more coded medical stories than
Science, seven to three. One of these Nature pieces was an

abstract of a story which detailed the ongoing debate over

who was to get credit for being the first to use X-rays to

112

determine if a patient’s bone was fractured.3S This article
provides another case in which use of the technology was
placed in a competitive framework by the scientists
themselves. Another three line medical abstract, which
originated in Paris, simply told of the discovery and
extraction of a needle embedded in a patient’s hand.:36 And
another abstract from Paris told of how a coating of silver
chromate allowed the X-rays not only to photograph muscles
but also muscle bundlesf”

The only other medically related article coded from
Science during this early period was an abstract from Germany.
The piece described the use of X-rays to determine the
"calcification resulting from pulmonary consumption." It was
followed on the same page by‘a non—coded piece from Paris that
talked of the use of X-rays for treating tuberculosisfi38

These articles point to the trend found in Nature, and
to a smaller extent in Science, to use abstracted pieces from
scientific societies and journals throughout the ‘world--
Canada, Paris and Germany being cited most often. Nature ran
53% abstracts, 6% reports and/or speeches and only 16%
articles as compared to 15%, 25% and 44% for Science (See
Table #15).

While no negative pieces were coded in Science during
this early period to 1902, one was found in Nature. The
article from April 8, 1897, referred.tx>aa previous Nature

article about the harmful effects of X-rays on a scientist’s

hands. The piece then summarized an article from the British

113
Medical Bulletin:

x—rays are even more powerful than have been

generally thought, and that the deleterious effects

may in some cases be quite serious; the cutaneous

manifestations are not however, the most severe of

the lesions, but they are surpassed in severity by

those of the deeper tissues, and particularly of

periosteum and bones.

Another Nature medical article, from the Spring of 1897,
acknowledged that X-ray workers are being injured by the
apparatus, but suggested it was not the X-rays that were
harmful but rather the strong currents surrounding the
machines."0

While both negative and positive medical stories were
found in the two journals, they were few in number. Most
articles fell within the neutral tonal range and under the
discovery category (See Tables #11, #12 & #16). Stories about
discovery topics such as new instrumentation and changing
theories were by far the most prevalent in the journals.'

One such discovery abstract from Nature ran on April 21,
1898. It dealt with a method of increasing the intensity of
X-rays by passing them through a glass or metal tube before
reaching the photographic plate."1 During this same time,
across the Atlantic descriptions of new and improved
apparatuses were also being printed. Sometimes the same
description was run in both journals. Science ran Lord
Kelvin’s lecture ELECTRIFICATION OF AIR BY ROENTGEN RAYS, on
January 22, 1897, which he had sent to them as it was printed

on Nature’s proof sheets. IMuch of it was a description of the

apparatus built to test the scientist’s hypothesis, as well

114

as what was done to modify the apparatus as the experiment
proceeded. A diagram of the apparatus was also included and
the piece was signed by Kelvin and his two assistants.“2

While discovery type stories consisting of instrumental
and theoretical pieces made up most of the early coverage,
"other" type stories were also presented. One "other" story
subject that reoccurred in both journals concerned experiments
with the effects of X-rays on plants. One of the two early
Science plant-related articles was dated June 26, 1896. It
began, "The marked attention which the Roentgen or X-rays are
receiving from investigators of this and other countries, and
the popular excitement felt in the investigations render all
papers on this subject of particular interest." It went on
to say that early research on the effects of X-rays on plants
was inconclusive because the available apparatuses could not
expose the plant to the rays for a long enough period of
time.43

Nature also ran four early plant related abstracts. Two
of them dealt with the use of X-rays to determine
physiological aspects of plant life. The other two abstracts
analyzed the effect of X-rays on germination and growth“ Like
the Science article cited above, neither found that X—rays had
any major effect on plant growth. Unlike the longer Science
article though, the two shorter abstracts did not mention the
need for further experimentation or the deficiency of quality

equipment.“

Another interesting "other" story found in Nature during

115

this early period was an abstract of an article from the
British Medical Journal. It dealt with the use of X-rays to
help photograph bird, reptile and mammal fossils still
embedded in rock.(.5 In line with this innovative use of the
new technology on June 4, 1896, Nature ran an abstract from
the Royal Society of Edinburgh in which X-rays were used to
photograph a mummy’s footfi“

Experiments such as these which used the new power of X-
rays to explore old questions continued throughout the study
period, but were overshadowed somewhat in 1898 and more so
around 1903, when it was learned that elements from the earth
could similarly imprint the shapes of objects on photographic

paper and could also produce their own heat.

Becquerel and the Curies Arrive on the Scene

Both Science’s and Nature’s largest peaks of coverage
came in 1896 and were devoted entirely to the X-ray subject.
After this peak, Science’s coverage dropped to seven stories
in 1897 and two in 1898. Whatever the reason for this drop,
the journal gave much less coverage to Becquerel’s 1896
uranium emanation discovery and to the Curies’ 1898
revelations about radiumwandjpolonium (See Figure #3). Though
Nature’s coverage also dropped off during this period it still
carried many smaller pieces on these early discoveries, with
its first detailed Becquerel-ray piece running on April 23,
1896. In it J.J. Thomson briefly discussed the similarities
between X~rays and uranium emanations before continuing on to

describe his current X—ray work. This early trend to lump

116

both radiating phenomena together was found in many
scientists’ work during this time. This also may partly
explain why coverage of radium discoveries were more limited
at first. The large amount of coverage that X-rays received
may have taken away some of the early novelty from the new
radiation phenomena."7

Nature’s first coded mention of radium and polonium was
in an abstract from the Paris Academy of Science on November
16, 1899. The piece talked off how substances placed over
radioactive materials such as polonium or radium picked up

48

their radioactive qualities. Nature carried a few more such

abstracts, but the first really detailed article wasn’t coded

until June 13, 1901. It was a 140 line piece by Ernest
Rutherford, writing about his research from McGill
University.”8

Similarly, Science at first gave only brief mention to
the new radioactive discoveries. It did run an article about
J.J. Thomson’s further research into the nature of the atom
in its September 7, 1900, issue that quickly mentioned the
effects that X-rays, uranium and radium have upon atoms. The
article though was mostly concerned with relaying just how
revolutionary his work was at the time. Thomson had begun to
conceptualize matter and atoms not as solid balls but as
porous. He came to this conclusion partly through the use of
a cloud chamber, which allowed the calculation of air
49

conductivity in a box saturated with water molecules.

The article took on a very positive tone when discussing

117

Thomson’s work: "’his theory must be classed among mere
Utopias.’ It would seem that a beginning has been made in
attaining Utopia." 'This was not the last time that references
to Utopias and the relieving of all illnesses and energy
problems were to be associated with the communication of early
atomic theory and its application.50

The discussion of the new discoveries continued and on
July 12, 1901, one month after the Rutherford article had run
in Nature, Science ran a more in depth, 672 lined piece on
radioactive substances in which Becquerel’s and the Curies’
discoveries were more widely explored than before. Twelve
different scientific sources were cited in the story. The
article raised the possibility that the luminescent quality
of radium salts were in fact "the longed for light without
heat." It went on to say that a fortune might be made in
investing in radium, but tempered itself by admitting that the
fortunes would have to wait until the cost of extracting
radium from pitchblende and its other ores decreased.S1

These early articles on radium and uranium carried images
both of wealth and the betterment of human life. The detailed
pieces appeared in the journals’ coding sample almost two-
and-a-half years before the first comparable piece on
radioactive elements was coded in The New York Times and two
years before any mention was found in The Times of London.52
Yet, two earlier, brief mentions of Becquerel’s work were
coded from The Times of London sample, one from its yearly

wrap-up "Science in 1896" and another in "Science in 1897."53

118

Besides scooping both papers on presenting a detailed
explanation of the theoretical aspects of radium, Science also
scooped the papers and Nature in discussing radium’s possible
medical applications. On July 31, 1903, in a reprint of a
letter from Alexander Graham Bell to a doctor in Washington,
D. C., Science ran Bell’s suggestion that if both radium and
X-rays had been found to cure external cancers, "there is no
reason why a tiny fragment of radium sealed up in a fine glass
tube should not be inserted into the very heart of the
cancer."54

Science’s scoop is made more interesting when considering
that medical stories made up only 6.5% of the stories from
Science, while they accounted for 36.0% of the coverage from
The Neinork Times and 31.5% from The Times of London. The
letter scooped The New York Times by about five months in
referring to radium as a cancer treatment, and beat Nature by
about three years in reporting the use of radium in a medical
setting.SS

Science also scooped The Times of London by three years
in the sample, though a brief mention of radium’s power to
burn flesh was included in the first radium story coded from
the London paper. It stated that,

Radium, if kept in contact with the skin for some

hours, or even if carried in the waistcoat pocket,

produces an open sore, by destroying the epidermis

and the true skin beneath....Radium emanations act

powerfully upon the nerve substances, and cause the

death of living things whose nerve centers do not

lie deep enough to be shielded from their
influence.

119

This story from The Times of London is an example of a
story that was coded neutral because of its presentation of
both the positive and negative aspects of radium. Along with
the above quote the story also carried the message that
"Radium has excited the keenest interest by its power of
throwing off rays, vibrations, emanations,...It is obvious
that M. Curie has introduced us to forces of a totally
different order of magnitude." This debate over the positive
and negative powers of the Curies’ discovery was to continue

throughout the decade.fi'

Nuclear Coverage from
1903 to 1911

Becquerel and the Curies split the Nobel Prize for
Physics in December 1903 for their respective studies, marking
the second peak of nuclear coverage found in the publications.
Exploration of radium’s mysteries and usefulness continued
throughout the period from 1903 to 1911. As stated
previously, the newspapers sampled didn’t really pick up their
radium coverage until 1903, which was a period in which Pierre
Curie toured many nations with his vial of hard earned radium,
lecturing and explaining that radium spontaneously emitted
heat along with its already known qualities of luminescence
and radioactivity.58

The New York Times ran an editorial concerning the great
energy and heat released by radium on May 8, 1904. It opened

with,

120

There seems to be hardly any limit to the marvels

of radium. A French person [Assumedly Pierre Curie]

of science foresees its immense influence on mankind

when it shall be procured at a less frantic cost.

He affirms that its heat rays are capable of melting

down stones and massive iron and steel structures

and that its qualities must interdict all war.

.The writer thought it interesting that this very concept had
been raised by H.G. Wells six years earlier, in his book The
War of Worlds, and felt certain that the Martian death rays,
from the classic space invasion story, were produced by
radium.

This story was coded under both power and military and
was the only power story that ran infzhg New York Times during
this period, while none ran in The Times of London. In
contrast, 11 and 26 pieces respectively ran in the two
newspapers during this period dealing with the discovery
aspects of radium and X-rays.

During this period the London paper carried a higher
percentage of discovery stories than did the New York paper,
which carried more stories on medical and price and supply
issues along with its discovery pieces. The Times of London
did switch to a wider variety of nuclear category coverage
after 1911, when it too began to run more price and supply
and medical pieces. This discrepancy in the amount of
discovery pieces during this period is in part due to an
ongoing debate that was being carried on the pages of London’s
elite newspaper. The debate took the shape of a series of

letters-to-the-editor, mostly between a person who signed his

letters, Ignoramus, and Sir William Crookes, one of the major

121
discoverers of the cathode ray tube.

Over the course of many months these two scientists, as
well as their supporters, argued over theoretical points of
radium’s nature on the pages of the London paper.

One such letter from March 28, 1903, stated,

Sir,-According to the ingenious explanation offered
by Sir William Crookes, the Radium effect depends
upon the impact of rapidly moving molecules of gas.
Ought not Radium in that case to cease to display
its peculiar properties in a vacuum?...I ask merely
to elicit information, being only an IGNORAMUS.

Crookes replied one week later,

Sir,-Perhaps I may be allowed to occupy a few lines
in reply to the reasonable remarks of your
correspondent "Ignoramus." According to the
hypothesis I ventured to formulate, I have little
doubt that radium would cease to show its peculiar

properties in a perfect vacuum. But such
experiments at present are impossible of
performance. . . . I have the honor to remain yours ,

&c., WILLIAM CRooxEs.61

The debate continued with supporters of each man getting
in on the dispute. ’The coverage of the debates between
Crookes and Ignoramous and their supporters, indicates that
both scientists and the media were interested in presenting
scientific issues to the public. But more importantly it also
reveals that the public were allowed to become involved in
scientific debate over the proper interpretation of a new and
powerful phenomena.

Such debates over scientific truth were not limited to

London or to the letter-to-the-editor column. The New York

 

Times presented another point of debate in an article
discussing radium’s possible transmutation of elements. The

article appeared a couple of weeks after the awarding of the

122

1903 Nobel Prize. In this article, Sir William Ramsay, who
had become famous for his 1895 discovery of the second
smallest element, helium, wrote of the new discovery as if he
were giving a lecture to a class. In it, he relayed that one
product of radium radiation was the element with which he was
very familiar, helium. This process of manufacturing one
element from another he referred to as transformation. It
invoked images of matter changes similar to those of the
alchemists, who sought among other things the ability to turn
lead into gold.62

Yet, among these references of new paths to wealth and
power, Ramsay alluded to his doubt of obtaining the mythical
transformation of elements:

[C]an the process be reversed? No one knows. But as gold
is an element of high atomic weight, it may be
confidently stated that if it is changing, it is much
more likely that it is being converted into silver and
copper [smaller elements of ’lower atomic weight than
gold] than that it is being formed from them.

A Nature article from August 13, 1903, contained many of
the same facts as Ramsay’s December New York Times piece, but
presented them in a much more formal manner. In his newspaper
piece Ramsay had given many more details concerning the
history of the experimental process as well as the speculation
about transmutation, quoted above. None of that was seen, in
what was essentially a lab write up, in Nature.

Ramsay was not alone in his intrigue with the production
of such a small atom as helium from the larger atom of radium.

Ernest Rutherford discussed alchemy-like edemental

transformations caused b radium’s emanations in the June 10
. I

123
1904, issue of Science (which was a reprint of a lecture that
first had been covered by The Times of London). He also spoke
of how

If we could collect a cubic inch of the emanation, the

tube that contained it would probably melt, while a few

pounds would supply enough energy to drive a ship across
the Atlantic, though each of these pounds would require

70 tons of radium to supply it.

But Everybody did not agree with Ramsay’s and
Rutherford’s positive views on transmutation and radium
emanations. In a long article written by Frederick Soddy, a
blow by blow account was given of the debate between Lord
Kelvin and practically everybody else in the arena of the
physical sciences. Kelvin had dropped the gauntlet after one
of Soddy’s lectures, by writing to The Times of London that
he did not believe Soddy’s statement that "the production of
helium from radium has established the fact of the gradual
evolution of one element into others....[nor that] the heat
of the sun was due to radium, and ascribed it to
gravitation."64

The article continued with many examples of rivalry
between scientific disciplines, such as Sir Oliver Lodge’s
belief "that whereas chemists have an instinct of their own
for arriving at their results, reason is the monopoly of the
physicist, whose results the chemists usually manages to
absorb in the end." There was also Prof. Armstrong’s
"criticism of physicists in general," who he declared were,

"strangely innocent workers under the all-potent influence of

formula and fashion." Armstrong was a supporter of Kelvin’s

124

and one of his letters of support was also reprinted in

Science . 65

The reprinted letter quoted Armstrong as writing:

Workers in the radium school appear to have cast caution
to the winds and to have substituted pure imagination for
it. Among ourselves, we should always be at liberty to
postulate the most crack-brained of hypotheses, to dream
the wildest of dreams, as a means of guiding inquiry; but
we should not court popularity on such a basis. By so
doing we lose all claim to guide public opinion.

In the course of his article over this particular debate
that spanned the Atlantic, Soddy stated:

Whether anything more is known about transmutation
now than formerly, whether lead could change into
gold or gold into silver with an emission of energy
similar to that evolved from radium, whether this
or similar energy plays the large share that has
been attributed to it in cosmical processes, are
questions which may be legitimately discussed and
left open....It would be a pity if the public were
misled into supposing that those who have not worked
with radio-active bodies are as entitled to as
weighty an opinion as those who have. The latter
are talking of the facts they know, the former
frequently of the terms they have read of....The
sooner this is understood the better, for in radio-
activity we have but a foretaste of a fountain of
new knowledge, destined to overflow the boundaries
of science and to impregnate with teeming thought
many a high and arid plateau of philosophy.a'

Both Armstrong and Soddy mentioned the public’s
perception of science as well as the scientist’s ability to
guide this opinion. Soddy also expressed his belief that only
the experimenter can ultimately know the truth of any one
phenomena. His statement presents an image of the scientist
as closer to truth, especially when dealing with radium
phenomena, which he called "a fountain of new knowledge."

Ramsay, Rutherford, Kelvin and others continued to debate

and research radium’s powerful potentials and the media

125

continued to cover their findings. On July 28, 1907, Ramsay
was back in the press. On this date, The New York Timee ran
a page-one story about Ramsay relating how "The great
scientist" had confidence in his research into the
transformation of elements, which he now called transmutation.
He had carried out experiments in which he felt sure that
radium radiation had degraded copper into the lower atomic-
massed element, lithium.

In the article, the journalist attempted to explain the
scientific controversy surrounding Ramsay’s claims. He listed
both those who agreed with Ramsay’s findings and those, like
Lord Kelvin, who were holding out for more replicable data and
for greater amounts of the rare radium to be made available
for larger experiments. The article also contained the only
reference to a science writer coded from the study period.
The science journalist sided with Lord Kelvin. He apparently
thought Ramsay was just trying to prove what alchemists had
failed to prove for centuries. The writer communicated his
negative views about such an attempt as well as his view on
the status of American science with this comment:

Those who have studied the literature which has recently

dealt with the subject will have noticed that if we

except those actively working on radium, the belief in
transmutation is for, the most part, confined to American
textbooks, while writers such as Arrhenius, whose book
was issued only a few months since, agree with Lord
Kelvin in preferring to wait for further experiment...
On August 2, 1907, Science ran a short article by Ramsay

himself, in which he further discussed his transmutation

findings. At the bottom of the article it was noted that the

126

reprinted letter was from Nature and "apparently the basis of
the alleged interview with Sir William Ramsay, cabled to a
prominent New York newspaper on July 28 and widely quoted."
The letter was short and much less committed to the
absoluteness of transmutation thanwwere the quotes used in the
New York Times piece. Ramsay’s December lecture covered by
The Times of London was similarity cautious. (December 12,
1907)}59 Again the trail of scientific coverage is seen to
have travelled from one publication to another. This time The
New York Times was a bit more sensational with the facts than
were the other publications.70

A letter-to-the-editor in The Times of London, one year
later on September 19, 1908, took a much more blunt view
toward the whole transmutation debate being presented to the
public. The author wrote,

As the public have been entertained of late almost

ad nauseam with descriptions of the magic power of

radium in transmuting copper into lithium and

various other elements, it is desirable to make the

opinion of chemists known....Although previously

whispered from America, the assertion that elements

could be transmuted by radium was first.made at last

year’s meeting of the Association at Leicester. . . . It

may be said, without fear of contradiction, that the

powers of radium have been vastly'overrated. Itself

a most mysterious substance, we have yet to learn

the exact nature of the changes which it

undergoes....It is hoped, in the interests of

science, and therefore of truth, that in future

guesses may not be made public until they have been

transmuted into facts.71

Science capped the transmutation debate for awhile on

December 4, 1908, with a lengthy article of 399 lines by an

independent researcher who stated, "we must say that we have

127
not succeeded in confirming the experiments of Messrs. Ramsay

and Cameron."72

The reason given was that the researchers
could not obtain a sample of copper that was free of all
traces of lithium. before irradiating’ it, and even ‘when
irradiated they never could produce the amount of lithium that
Ramsay had claimed.

While scientists’ commitment to popularizing science are
historically reported to have been low during this time, the
coverage of the transmutation debate gives evidence that some
in the scientific world were very aware of the public--a
public which was interested in reading about what was going
on in the laboratory. The debate also gives further evidence
of the permeable editorial boundaries among the four
publications. Many stories were seen to cross from one
publication to another without editorial resistance.

The potential of radium was clearly being communicated
with language and images that invoked.works of magic and great
power similar to that which had been used with X-rays. At the
same time though, as was seen with X-rays, voices of caution
and admonishment of poor science were being carried in the
publications. This range of images was presented in both
scientific mediums such as Science and Nature as well as in
popular press publications such.as The Times of London and Ime
New York Times.

While messages of caution were present, some very
positive stories also appeared through out the study, some of

which ran with little or no scientific backing and without the

128
presence of supporting sources. One such front-page piece,

from the June 20, 1905, issue of The New York Times, was

 

headlined:

GENERATION BY RADIUM

Cambridge Professor Reported to have Produced Artificial

Life
The headline referred to an experiment in which radium and
sterilized bullion, after being placed ixnaa test tube, had
generated cultures that seemed alive, and thus "almost
certainly demonstrated the possibility of spontaneous
generation.“3 No evidence of reproducibility nor any other
source was included in the two-inch article.

Another New York Times article, from February 6, 1904,
related the manner in which some scientists actually paid
homage to the power of radium. At one point, during a
technology club’s annual dinner, each member drank a toast
with liquid that had been irradiated with radium capsules.
The lights were then turned off and the scientists were
treated to dancing skeletons and pasteboard chickens, which
had been painted with luminescent paint. One scientist
appeared in the dark and began to lecture with a luminous
cigar in his mouth. The coverage of the ceremony portrayed
it as a celebration of the wonders of the new discoveries,
highlighted by the drinking of the radium toast, which
presents an image of a eucharist to the god of scientific

knowledge."

The Times of London also carried an article with magical

129
and alchemical images on August 2, 1906. In mentioning the
Curies’ work with radium during a scientific convention, the
author talked of the long arduous process needed to extract
a few particles of the mysterious element and retold a story
of the absent-minded Pierre: "On his return to Paris he was
one day demonstrating in his lecture room with this precious
tube the properties of radium when it slipped from his hands,
broke, and scattered far and wide the most precious and
magical powder ever dreamed of by alchemist or artist of
romance." The piece had been written we months after

Pierre’s fatal accident in Paris on April 19, 1906.75

The Death of Pierre Curie

The Times of London reported Pierre Curie’s sudden death
by stating that he had slipped while getting out of the way
of a taxi on a busy thoroughfare in Paris. As he tried to
rise from the street where he had fallen, the wheel of a
horse-drawn dray ran over his head, killing him immediately.
The article then reviewed the famous scientist’s
accomplishments--his work with piezo-electricity and his and
Marie Curie’s discovery of radium and polonium.76

Contrary to the normal difference found between the
language of London’s elite paper and England’s leading science
journal, The Times of London’s piece was much more reserved

in its discussion of Pierre Curie and his work than Nature’s

article, written by Frederick Soddy. Soddy wrote:

130

Cut off in the midst of a career of active
scientific investigation, in the flower of life and
at the height of a unique reputation, brilliantly
won and universally acknowledged, his death will be
mourned by the whole civilized world. In this
country, where the. importance of his work and
discoveries was early and fully recognized, and
where the fame attaching to his name has spread
widely, deep sympathy will be felt for Mde. Curie
in her tragic bereavement, coupled with a sense of
loss that a partnership in science so illustrious
and fruitful has been brought to so untimely a
close....It has been said by a recent writer that
there will come a time when men will date the coming
of their kingdom to the day when Curie and Laborde
discovered the spontaneous evolution of heat from
radium. Certainly no limit can be set to the
consequences in the near or distant future which may
be expected to flow from the discoveries with which
the name of Curie is associated. Like Roentgen
shortly before, Curie emerged at one step from
comparative obscurity to universal fame, and what
they achieved is still within the horizon of the
humblest investigator.

Soddy in his words of condolence, clearly reveals his
opinion that the Curies, like Roentgen, have reached the
summit of human endeavour through their scientific
discoveries. The illustrious partner, who shared Pierre’s
humble discovery of this element of limitless possibilities,
grieved terribly for him. In her biography of her mother,
Marie’s daughter, Eve, told of how, "From the moment when
those three words, "Pierre is dead," reached her [mother’s]
consciousness, a cape of solitude and secrecy fell upon her
shoulders forever. Marie Curie, on that day in April, became
not only a widow, but at the same time a pitiful and incurably
lonely woman." Days later, Mme. Curie finally burned the
blood soaked clothes of her husband, kissing the fragments of

his brain left upon them as she did so. She then quietly took

131

up the responsibilities of the household and eventually took
over Pierre’s chair in physics at the University of Paris,
becoming the first woman to hold such a position in French
higher education.78

Marie Curie’s naming’ to this post was not without
resistance, and it was not the only time she found herself in
the center of debates over her accomplishments and merits.
A letter-to-the-editor in The Times of London from November
10, 1906, spoke out against the recurrent description of Marie
Curie as "the widow of the discoverer of radium." The writer
proceeded to recite lines from Marie’s 1903 doctoral thesis,
in which she stated that working alone she found that certain
minerals possessed more radioactivity than uranium or thorium.
It.was after these early discoveries that she and Pierre began
to work together to isolate the "radioactive element," as
Marie was to call it.79 Eve Curie backed up the disgruntled
letter writer’s facts in her book, but tried to silence the
debate about who did what when, with the statement that "We
cannot and must not attempt to find out what should be
credited to Marie and.what to Pierre during these eight years.
It would be exactly what the husband and wife did not want."80

The mourning expressed for Pierre Curie, as well as
debate over credit for the discovery of radium, point to the
importance that was placed upon such discoveries and the
notoriety given to those credited with making them. It also

indicates just how revolutionary a place Marie Curie holds in

the honor roll of women scientists. She and her discoveries

132
were at the center of women scientist’s early efforts to break
into a male dominated world, where fame and respect were
reserved for the explorers of the scientific unknown.
Exploration of this remarkable woman’s discovery was to

proceed in the realms of heaven and earth.

Radium in the Earth and the Stars

While coverage of advances in new equipment and
technologies and ongoing theoretical debates continued to be
present in all four publications during this period, other
topics of scientific interest also emerged. Two were the
nature of radium and uranium in the Earth and the search for
radium in the stars. In a letter-to-the-editor in Nature,
Charles Darwin’s son, George, speculated that the source of
radium’s great power might be the same that powers the sun,
thus modifying the theory of the time concerning the sun’s
age.81

Science ran an article on May 28, 1909, that also dealt
with radium and the stars. The author stated that it was
possible to track cosmic evolution using radium spectrum
lines. 'During the course of the article he noted limitations,
but pointed to the vast amount of work currently being done
on understanding the effects of radium on the Earth’s surface
and noted that knowledge of its effect on the stars would
likewise continue to grow.82

Two years earlier, another article in Science had dealt

with radium and fluctuations in the Earth’s temperature. The

133
article was written by J. Joly, whose work from Trinity

83 All four

College in Ireland was also often found in Nature.
publications carried stories from scientists world-wide, such
as Joly. This gives some indication as to how important
certain editors felt nuclear coverage was, and it reflects the
use of new technologies such as telegraph cables to transmit
these foreign pieces long distances.

Stories transmitted by telegraph began to more frequently
appear in the sample. They revealed that Joly was not the
only one working with the nature of radium in the Earth. The
geological issue ‘was complicated. by :radium’s ability' to
generate its own heat as well as its quick degeneration.
Scientists could not explain why all of the uranium in the
Earth hadn’t already degenerated into other elements, or why
this degeneration didn’t show up in an increase in the
temperature of the Earth. They were later to learn that it
had to do with the isotopic nature of the element. The
isotopes of radium and uranium produced in the laboratory were
often muchlmore radioactive than those that naturally existed.

The debate over the presence of radium and uranium in
the Earth and the stars was still raging in September of 1910,
when the International Congress of Radiology and Electricity
was held in Brussels. 'The proceedings of the Congress clearly
indicated that Ernest Rutherford and Marie Curie were looked
to as the leaders in the field of atomic science. Rutherford
stated that a standard of pure radium was needed as a

reference for future research, and Curie agreed to produce 20

134
milligrams of the purest radium salt sample she could- At the
‘meeting, the esteemed scientist was honored by having her name
given as the unit of radium emanation. Radioactive

disintegrations would be measured from then on in "curies."84

Medical Coverage from 1903 to 1911

Debates over the nature of radium weren’t the only ones
going on during the period from 1903 to 1911. Coverage of
medical issues also remained strong, with The New York Times
carrying more such stories during this period, followed by
The Times of London and Nature.

Most of The New York Times’s headlines dealing with
medical news during the period had a positive tone similar to
that which topped a three column spread in The New York Times
Sunday supplement of July 24, 1904:

War on Skin Cancer

Waged with Radium
Berlin specialist tells of his epoch-making cures,
methods and results.
The article, based on one source, talked of cures for tongue,
lip and skin cancer as well as psoriasis and swollen hands.
The form of treatment was a daily half-hour application of a
small amount of encapsulated radium salt plastered to the
skin.85

On May 21, 1909, The Times of London discussed a lecture

in which radium was claimed to have cured eczema, acne,

angioma, epithelioma and to have helped with breast cancer.

The lecturer did note at the end though that "too much must

135
not be expected, and its use was limited to cases which were
not too extensive and which were sufficiently localized."86
Another Times of London piece, from August 2, 1911, heralded,
without such caution, the opening of the new egalitarian
Radium Institute, developed by King Edward. It was

arranged that although poor and rich patients enter

the building by separate doors, yet the actual rooms

in which their several cases are diagnosed, and in

which they may receive subsequent treatment, are

identical in the matter of professional fittings and
upholstery. There is nothing grim or sinister about

the building or the internal decoration. It has

been designed as a "Temple of Hope”7
The article also mentioned that the institute had the largest
supply of radium of any institution of its kind, with L50,000
(pounds) worth of the element locked away in a specially built
safe.

Much of the coverage over the next few months expressed
this same awe toward the healing power of the mysterious
element. Yet, while many stories praising radium and related
scientific advances continued to be written, more articles
also began to appear discussing the dangers of excessive
exposure to radium’s precursor-~Roentgen’s X-rays.

A New York Times article from June 1, 1906, talked of
the tragic end met by a doctor who had long explored the
healing power of X-rays. In the course of two years the
doctor had to have both of his hands removed because of
cancerous tumors as well as part of his shoulder and chest.
Finally, the doctor realized that he could not stop the cancer

from killing him and so "calmly and philosophically waited for

the end, with the only consolation of knowing that he had done

136

something for the advance of medical science."88

The Times of London also carried many pieces on X-ray
workers stricken with X-ray dermatitis, who were also forced
to undergo amputations similar to the New York doctor. One
piece from a correspondent spoke of how people were wary of
getting X-ray treatments because of the number of workers
getting cancer: "It is advisable, therefore to point out that
it is the pioneers in the field who have paid the penalty of
their boldness and that their sufferings have secured immunity
for subsequent operators." It went on to speak of the
evolution in equipment that had occurred as well as new
precautionary measures such as using lead shields. Many of
these early workers were seen as martyrs to their science.89

One such martyr was Harry Cox, who also suffered from X-
ray dermatitis. Cox, however, was treated for his X-ray
radiation induced cancers by radium emanations. Here the new
technology was used to try to cure the damaging aspects of the
earlier one. Radium treatments relieved the pain and removed
tumors just has X-rays were seen earlier to have done for
other ailments. Without the benefit of longitudinal studies
the doctors applied the radium. treatments to the X-ray
dermatitis, their faith in the new technology unwavering in
their attempt to use it to treat another technology’s
damage.90

Two other articles from The Times of London dealt with

the dangers of X-rays, calling for better regulated

treatments. In one the president of the Radiology and Medical

137

Electricity Society "alluded to the importance of X-ray
examinations and treatment being conducted by medical men
properly equipped for the task, incidentally observing that
the day would come when medical men who now employed laymen
to do that work would regret the precedent they had
established."91

The second article backed up the president’s statement.
It told of a clerk who, on a doctor’s advice, received ten or
11 X-ray treatments to cure the early stages of locomotor
ataxy. The doctor was never present during these treatments
and often the X-ray operator would leave the patient and his
wife in the room, with a machine that emitted great sparks.
The patient did not complain, and "eventually the soles of
his feet sloughed off, and he has never since been able to
put his feet to the ground and walk." Contrary to the early
X-ray damage cases, the defendant won his subsequent legal
case, in part because of the expert testimony of an outside
X-ray doctor.92

Evidence that such negligent use of the technology was
worldwide came in an article from The New York Times on April
7, 1907. It contained a warning from the German Roentgen
Society, which had passed a resolution to prevent unlicensed
persons from using X-rays to diagnose and treat illnesses.93

A few negative pieces were also written about radium
treatments during this time. For example, an early editorial

attacked the claims of doctors who had used radium salts to

cure cancer:

138

Meanwhile it is obvious that the evidence thus far
produced will be no more satisfactory to physicians than
are the canes and crutches which decorate certain shrines
as evidence of the curative power of relics....There is
plenty of opportunity to prove the efficacy of radium in
the cure of cancer, and when this is accomplished we
shall hear of it under conditions leaving no more room
for speculations...

Science, however, kept away from the negative aspects of
radium in its few medical articles. The three negative
stories coded for Science were all coded in the discovery
category. One already discussed was Lord Kelvin’s letter to
the editor, which itself referred to a letter that had been
reprinted from The Times of London. Kelvin had chastised the
scientific community for seemingly accepting transmutation and
the alchemy of elements without solid evidence. 'The other two
negative stories came late in the period, one in 1921 and one
in 1922, both.were written by the same scientist and described
negative aspects of the genetically mutating power of X-rays
on the development of fruit flies.95

Nature also carried limited negative medical coverage
during this time. One example of the stories it did carry,
wa a very thorough book review of THE RADIUM TREATMENT OF
DISEASE (May 11, 1911). The piece walked the fence between
the pro’s and con’s of radium as a medical treatment. It was
alconvoluted.piece, both critical of the book author’s methods
for administrating radium emanations, but at the same time
suggesting better ways of using the treatment. The reviewer
stated that

A cure is occasionally obtained, but every case of

malignant tumour that can be dealt with by the
surgeon should be extirpatedn Subsequent treatment

139

with radium may be of the greatest value in

destroying any cancerous cells that have escaped

removal by the surgeon, and so the recurrence of the
disease may be prevented.

The author then compared radium to X-rays as a treatment.
He noted that radium’s treatment values were that it
penetrated tissue much further, was more constant in quality
and quantity, could be left in tissue to give off constant
radiation, left little scaring, and was portable. Xkray’s
major benefit was that it was cheaper and thus could be used
over larger areas. The article ended:

In reviewing the present state of our knowledge of
the therapeutic effects of radium, the feeling
reached is that we are making our applications
empirically in the hope of lighting, almost by
accident, on some property of value in the cure of
diseases which have hitherto baffled the physician’s
skill.”

While doctors waited for experimental serendipity, a
Times of London article on February 27, 1907, pointed to how
during this same time X-rays continued to be viewed as a
precious technology. The short nine line piece relayed a
question asked of the Secretary of State for War, concerning
what "steps he proposed to take so that the United Kingdom
might not be dependant on foreign countries for a supply in

the event of war with a Continental Power." The debate over

nuclear issues was yet to reach its peak.98

Nuclear Coverage from 1912 to 1920
The period from 1912 to 1914 had more coverage of nuclear

issues than any other three year period in the study. The

140

pros and cons of radium and X-rays were broadly discussed in
all four publications studied. Much of the debate was carried
in the medical stories from the period. Medical stories from
1913 were for the most part neutral, like one from The New
York Times which spoke of advances in treating cancer since
countries began to set up radium institutes. Although its
lead stated there was, "proof positive this week of the
curative value of radium in cases of cancerous vascular
tumors, classed as deep angiomas," the story ended by saying
that the full effect of radium cancer treatment was still
unknown:

[T]he investigators make no extravagant claims regarding

radium’s effect on cancer. The best method of

proceeding, they assert, is to combine the therapeutic
effects of radium with surgical operations.

A negatively toned article in The Times of London from
this same period exemplifies how radium and X-rays were
continuing to be more and more discussed together in the
media. The piece was a synopsis of a speech by Sir James
Mackenzie Davidson. In his lecture, Davidson discussed the
burning effect that X-rays caused as well as the fact that
"The physiological effect of radium was very similar to that
of the X-rays, and depended upon the penetrability of the
gamma rays....While it was important in cancer it could not
be said to be a cure, and while it could inhibit the growth
of tumors it would not destroy them altogether."100

These and other’ articles about. the limitations and

injuries caused by the mystery rays of both X-rays and radium

began to appear more frequently both in The New York Times and

141
The Times of London, with 1914 being the year in which the
most stories were written with such a cautionary and negative
tone toward both X-rays and radium.

A large number of The New York Times’s medical articles
from 1914 took a position similar to a large piece that ran
in the Sunday magazine section of the January 4th issue. The
writer was Van Buren Thorne, M. [L A large seven-column
headline proclaimed:

THE PLAIN TRUTH ABOUT THE RADIUM CANCER CURE

The article started out with the statement that
historians will write of 1914 as the year when "the civilized
world, as well as the men of science, were engrossed in the
discussion of this subject: ’Will radium cure cancer?’"
Through. the course: of his article, Thorne relayed that
scientists were "trying to curb an unjustified over-
enthusiasm...[for they had] reached the ear of the world-
audience attuned nowadays in a remarkable degree to catch the
faintest whisperings of progress from the laboratory and the
clinic." This story came before the era of greater
popularization of science that was to come after WW-I.101

But not all of the stories getting out were cautious or
related negative consequences of radium therapy. A Times of
London piece dated.April 2, 1913, from Berlin gave the details
of a doctor’s discussion about the possible healing value of
water treated with radium emanations. The story stated that,

"On the Continent remarkable results had been attained by this

treatment in the whole range of diseases of metabolism,

142

including' ‘gout, rheumatoid arthritis, nephritis, and
arteriosclerosis."m2

Another story talked of how one man had continued with
his research even after losing an arm to Xkray dermatitis.
Dr. Hall-Edwards discussed his ongoing work with very soft X-
rays (less penetrating power) in regards to imaging insects,
flowers and even metal—based, ink written letters on a piece
of paper within an envelope.103

Nature got into the medical debate with a short article
on October 9, 1913, which lectured the public media for their
treatment of the topic. It discussed an article from a daily
paper that stated that a "complete revolution in the future
of radium" had occurred at the Radium Institute in the form
of collecting radium emanations in glass vials, so that they
might be delivered to other hospitals, (this was part of the
October, 3, 1913, Times of London story coded). The author
of the Nature article stated, "It was assumed by the literary
young men who write the leaders and notes in the daily papers
that radium emanation had just been discovered instead of
being known and named for ten years or more, so they let their
enthusiasm overstep the bounds of their knowledge."m4

The author then noted that the remedy described by the
newspapers was not new, and had been written about fours years
earlier in a scientific journal and followed up two years
after that in the same journal. The author closed his

cautionary piece by saying that, "Even in this dreaded disease

[cancer] many favorable result have been reported both with

143

radium and with the Roentgen rays, but unfortunately
disappointments are far more frequent than cures." This is
by far the strongest piece coded in which a scientist
admonished the content of science stories. Most earlier
comments about the media were in regards to how the scientists
were presenting themselves. In fairness, The Times of London
article mentioned.did.cite.and.quote the administrators of the
Radium Institute through out. It is more likely that they
were misleading than that the journalist misrepresented what
they had said. This issue, in addition to being an example
of a scientist’s active involvement in critiquing science
reporting, is also another example of the increasing concern
with popularizing science even before the war.105

In contrast, the war also probably influenced a

subsequent decrease in nuclear coverage. While The New York

Times’s and The Times of London’s coverage of medical issues

 

were at its highest in 1914--it fell in 1915. In England the
probable cause for this fall was the escalation of World War
I. Still, a Times of London article from January 19, 1915,
contained an important first for the sample. It was written
by what was called a Medical Correspondent.

The bylineaof'Medical Correspondent was coded eight times
for The Times of London, and was not found in any other
publication studied, not even the science writing, flag-
carrier, New York Timee. The London paper’s medical
correspondent wrote mostly about X-ray technologies, and it

is supposed that this was his area of expertise, because of

144
the limited amount of sources he used per piece and the great
amount of detail given.

This first piece opened with a«discussion.of how valuable
X-rays were in treating the war wounded. Later in the article
he wrote that "Wherever modern science could be called to the
help of surgeons or patients that assistance has been secured,
and no detail has been regarded as beneath notice." He
continued the article with a description of new protective
measures being taken to protect the X-ray operator.106

A later piece, in 1919, by the medical correspondent
followed up on the use of X-rays during the Great War. "The
enormous value of X-rays during the war in locating bullets
and pieces of shrapnel has convinced the world that this
branch of medicine deserves to be cultivated and studied."
He went on to describe the need for expert use of the rays so
that they would not become "dangerous."107

Nature too gave page space to the use of nuclear science
and technology for the war effort. A brief mention of it came
in a 1915 abstract that compared radiological methods of

”8 A much more

localizing projectiles and treating wounded.
thorough 387 lined lecture, reprinted on January 31, 1918, was
entitled X-RAYS AND THE WAR. The piece relayed how in
addition to imaging bullet fragments, X-rays were also used
to depilate hair and make flaps of skin more pliant for the
plastic surgeons. It noted the unpreparedness of England’s

X-ray manufacturers, especially the glass makers, who had to

make up the loss of those units normally supplied by Germany.

145
They were helped in their effort to produce enough high
quality glass by both France and America. The author then
discussed in great detail the current advances in X-ray
technology. He closed his lecture by saying that,

It is the shameful truth that the man of science,
with few exceptions, has received little or no
recognition by the mass of people....But the
country, in its hour of need, has turned to its
scientific sons for help in its war problems, and
has not turned in vain. The war is bringing home
to the nation the dependence of its very existence
on science, and a little good may come out of very
great evil if public opinion can be brought to
realize that the statement is as true in peace as
in war, and that a nation’s administrators should
always include among them suitable men of the
highest technical and scientific standing, not
merely to advise, but alSO>to initiate and direct.109

One year later, Nature ran a four page article by the
same author, G.W.C. Kaye, in which he discussed both medical
and industrial advances and uses of X-rays. Among the eight
photos included in the article were a 20 minute X-ray of a
hand from 1896 and the higher quality image made of a hand in
1/100 second in 1919. X-ray images were also included of
internal organs, airplane wings, golf balls, steel welds and
ancient paintings. In discussing the future of X-ray
technology Kaye stated,

Simultaneously comes the awakening of the medical

faculty generally to the importance and promise of

physical methods and physical agencies as a means

of progress in medical research. There is little

doubt that within a short time every large and

progressive hospital will have a physicist of
standing on its staff; and in this connection we
would congratulate the Middlesex Hospital on the
good fortune which enables it to establish what we
believe is the first medical chair of physics in

this country.11

This phenomena of science popularity addressed by Kaye

146
has been historically recognized. The use of technologies
such as X-rays and airplanes during the war put the products
of scientificland'technological advancement on the front page,
in life and nation saving dramas. In articles such as Kaye’s,
it can be seen that some scientists were in the front lines
popularizing science.

X-rays were not the only atomic energies seen as valuable
during the war. Two articles ran in The New York Timee in
which radium was used for military purposes. In one, the rays
were to be emitted from airplanes to help locate submarines
beneath the water.111 In the other, the rays were to be used
by police to analyze unexploded bombs. Specific mention was
made of detecting the high explosives that soldiers may have

"2 The Times of London on

brought back from World War I.
August 14, 1918, reported an order by the Ministries of
Munitions prohibiting the use or sale of luminous materials
without a permit, thus pointing to the need for the rare
element in the war effort.113

Throughout this period articles about the rarity of radium
were more frequently carried in all of the publications.
Often stories of price and supply were coupled with medical
topics. A 1913 piece about the Radium institute in England
discussed how the four grams of radium in possession had a
value of L80,000. Statistics of patients treated in the last
year were also given, with 3,000 "well-to-do" and 4,300

"afflicted poor" patients being treated. It also discussed

how it had been necessary to close the institute for the month

147

of August, "in order that the staff, who are working at high
pressure during the other 11 months of the year, and all of
whom have upon their hands burns caused by radium, may have
a holiday and the rest which is the only know cure for those
burns." This was one of many mentions of using the benefits
of nuclear technology to treat both the poor and wealthy. It
also shows that radium/was beginning to harm its.handlers just
as X-rays had previously done to those who worked with it.
Still, the benefits were seen to outweigh the negatives and
the patients continued to seek out its healing power."‘

This powerful element was discussed in a New York Times
article from October 6, 1913, which presented Austria’s plans
to corner the world’s radium market by purchasing mines and

patents.115

The Times of London had covered this story almost
a year earlier, giving the details of the Austrian
government’s L100,000 purchase of an estate that would "give
the State a practical monopoly of the radium production in
Austria, if not the world." These stories are an example of
how the publications often followed the same story across
time.116

Another flYork Tim—ee piece, from October 24, 1913,
discussed the reaction of two philanthropists who reportedly
wanted to counter any such moves to monopolize the world’s
radium. In this pursuit they had purchased what was touted
as the world’s largest deposit of radium, located in Paradox

Valley, Colorado. The men were quoted as saying, "not one

cent’s worth of the radium would be for sale...every particle

148
of the precious metal would be used in the cause of

humanity."117

Just how large a gift these men were donating
to humanity is realized by considering that one gram of radium
was worth $120,000 in 1913. Another article contained a
discussion about. a Ibill, which ‘would allow the federal
government to take control of all radium ore held on public
lands "for the benefit of the whole Nation, so that the
government would see that the radium was distributed where it
would do the most good." Here again the positive aspects of
the technology were seen as the right of all humanity--rich
and poor.118
A Science article written by a governmental geologist on
October 31, 1913, talked about the radium-carrying carnotite
deposits in Colorado as being "the largest source of radium
at the present time." Ikxdiscussing'how'to best use this rare
resource, the author talked about the need for a steady supply
of radium of high quality. As evidence for such a need he
stated:
The "wonders of radium" have been so extensively
exploited in the public press that already the naive is
being employed as a psychological agent in advertisements
of all kinds of materials, many of which contain no
radium at all.119
The use of governmental sources on price and supply
issues was more common in the U.S. publications and reflects
more governmental regulation of the precious commodity, but
as noted earlier the price and supply topic was not totally

disregarded in England. A Nature piece from January 30, 1919,

discussed an article reported in The Times of London, about

149
the discovery of a "fine lode containing pitchblende" in
Devon, England. It then went on to discuss the various
qualities of ore from.other countries and ended‘with, "Further
developments at Kingswood will therefore be awaited with
interest, especially in view of the statements made as to the
abnormal richness of the ore in uranium oxides."120

As articles about radium’s price and supply continued,
its potential for solving problems that arose out of the war
was also being discussed. From 1913 to 1922, more articles
appeared that dealt with the use of radium specifically for
energy purposes. This was a direct result of the adversity
encountered from coal and oil shortages during the war.

On July 1, 1915, early in the war, Nature ran a speech
given by Ernest Rutherford discussing his work with atomic
particles. In discussing the differences between alpha and
gamma particles he stated, "The transformation of each atom
results from an atomic explosion of an exceedingly violent
character, and in general results in a liberation of energy
many million times greater than from an equal mass of matter
in the most vigorous chemical reaction."121

Likewise, The New York Times wrote about Sir Oliver
Lodge’s speech, in which he noted that molecular fuels such
as coal were running out and therefore humanity must look to
the atom, where there is "enough energy to raise the German

fleet from the bottom of the sea to the top of the Scottish

mountains." Lodge added that he hoped

150

the human race would not discover how to use this energy

until it had brains and morality enough to use it

properly; If the discovery were made before its time, and
by the wrong people, this very planet would be unsafe.

Science did not include this paraphrase in its story on
Lodge’s speech. It instead highlighted that

Possibly there might occasionally be explosions due

to the liberation of power more quickly than it was

wanted, but in general he presumed that the

conditions of utilization would be good.1

The coverage of Lodge’s speech in the two publications
were essentially both positive in tone and content except for
The New York Times’s inclusion of Lodge’s tempering
philosophical visions.

Discovery and power issues such as those presented by
Lodge were not common in the newspapers’ coverage during this
time; most of their stories dealt with price and supply issues
as well as medical stories. The journals though continued to
present discovery and power issues. Science ran a six-page
piece on July 24, 1914, discussing the great advances in
atomic theory. One of these advances being Niels Bohr’s
revelation that atoms have a positively charged nucleus around
which the negatively charged electrons revolve. Bohr stated
that‘the revolving negative electrons create an electric
current which helps to hold the atom together.n4

On April 22, 1915, Nature ran a book review of the
Braggs’ new book on X-ray crystallography. The article

relayed how the Braggs had used X-rays to measure the

structures of atoms and crystals. "It reveals crystallography

151

more than ever as the handmaid of chemistry, and enhances a
hundredfold the necessity for a much more universal study of
crystals than has hitherto been recognized."125

This period also saw further research into transmutation
phenomena, with much work also underway in identifying
isotopes. A.letter-to-the-editor in Nature by J. Joly and
J.R. Cotter discussed how the Geiger-Nuttall curve (a
measurement of radioactivity) indicates that thorium might be

26 In

made of both stable and radioactive isotopic elements.1
following the unlocking of the atom’s secrets, Science on
November '21, 1919, ran a seven-page article by Rutherford
discussing the possibility of using the enormous energy of
gamma rays to smash the atomic nucleus to investigate its
inner workings. He explained that gamma particles travel at
about 20,000 times the speed of a rifle bullet, and that if
an ounce of helium moved at the speed of a gamma particle
which had been emitted from radium, it would be equivalent to
10,000 tons of solid shot traveling at 1 kilometer per
second.127

From 1913 until Marie Curie’s American visit, in the
spring of 1921, several more articles ran which dealt further

with the exploration of the atom as well as its use in new

technologies.

Madam Curie’s visit to America and Particle Bombardment
Rutherford’s articles highlight the fact that scientists

were slowly learning more and more of the secrets within the

152

atom through the use of Marie Curie’s radium and other
radioactive materials. Curie’s American visit in 1921 was a
milestone for the country and its relationship with her and
her discovery. Women across the country donated money to buy
a gram of radium for Curie to take baCk to France for her
research.

A. Neg York Times article from May 18, 1921, was
headlined:

MME. CURIE CALLED

GREATEST SCIENTIST
The article relayed how she was the first woman to be named
an Honorary Fellow of the American Museum of Natural History.
References were made about her continued advances in the
treatment of cancer; One chemist said, "I bring to Mme. Cure,
the mother of radium, the love, admiration and affection of

the chemists of America."128

In an article on May 20, 1921,
Curie was acclaimed the "high priestess of science." The
titles of "mother of radium" and "high priestess" presents an
image of Curie as one who knows the secrets of wielding the
powerful element for renewal and nurturing.129

This image is reinforced in'The Times of London’s reprint
of President Harding’s speech in honor of Curie, given during
the ceremony where he presented her with the vial of radium.
He praised the famous scientist and made an analogy between
the spiritual and physical world:

I have been very sure that that which I may call

the radioactive soul, or spirit, or intellect-call

it.what.you.choose-must first gather to itself, from
its. surroundings, the jpower that, it, afterwards

153
I

radiates in beneficence to those near it. I believe

it is the sum.of:many inspirations, born in on great

souls, which enables them to warm, to scintillate,

to radiate, to illumine and serve those about

them.”°
In this analogy, Harding took words from the world of science
to help describe what he believed only by faith. In
particular, his use of "radioactive soul" was a direct
reference to Curie’s term for the mysterious emanations of
radium. The power of the element is made analogous to that
which powers human good.

Science celebrated the significance of Curie’s discovery
and visit in an eight-page article by R.A. Millikan on July
1, 1921. The American physicist was to later win the 1923
Nobel Prize for, among other things, his oil drop experiment,
which provided a measure of electronic charge. He wrote:

Madame Curie has always remained simple, modest and

unaffected in the face of the world’s applause.

That is the highest compliment. which a fellow

scientist can pay her, and the surest sign that she

is not an ordinary person.
Millikan. in praising Curie’s humility again reveals the
notoriety to be gained through scientific discovery, but also
implies that humility is to be praised in the face of such
notoriety and in doing so raises the discoverer even higher
in the eyes of the public.

He then went on to explain how her discovery of radium
had helped to change the conception of the atom from a hard

ball to that of something more like a miniature solar system,

in which nuclei were like planets, electrons were like moons

154
and gamma rays were like shooting stars. He ended his essay
with the comment that
The most important thing in the world is a belief in the
reality of moral and spiritual values. It was because we
lost that belief that the world war came....[Yet] no
efforts toward social readjustments or toward the
redistribution of wealth have one thousandth as large a
chance of contributing to human well-being as have the
efforts of the physicist, the chemist, and the biologist
toward the better understanding and the better control
of nature.131
Millikan, like Harding, brings morality and spirituality
together with science, raising science above all other social
practices in controlling nature and improving life. After
this high praise of her efforts to better control nature,
Curie toured such American natural wonders as the Grand Canyon
and Niagara Falls. She then returned home with her radium
gift, and was only mentioned a few times in 1922. Two small
pieces in The Times of London that year discussed the
resistance in France to her taking up one of the vacant seats
in the Academy of Medicine. One article stated, "Mme. Curie’s
friends are determined to secure her election in the teeth of
the opposition of the last of the die-hards, unrepentant and
irreducible, to whom the idea of a woman’s admission to the

Academy is absolutely repugnant,"132

The piece was followed up
one month later with the announcement that she had been

accepted into the academy. The speech in her honor stated,

155

All those discoveries which result from yours are
as nothing compared with the fundamental fact which
you found--I mean the formidable energy contained
in the atomic system» If we are to succeed in being
able to release it methodically it would relieve the
world from the dread of seeing disappear, at short
notion, reckoning time in relation to the age of the
world, the fuel accumulated in former centuries
which is at present our principal source of
energy.

This comment among others shows how prominent was the
fear of an energy crisis even at this early time, and how
right from the start the atom has been seen by a few to be
the source to overcome such a shortage. Many stories from
1922 also discussed other uses of radium’s energy in industry,
on items like watch dials and hard-to-see machine parts. X-
rays also came back into favor as new technologies improved
their reliability. More articles about their use in curing
cancer appeared because of their relative affordability, as
opposed to the high price and low supply of quality radium.
But negative stories also continued, with The Times of London
running three during this period and The New York Times
running 15 neutral stories, many of which contained both the
positive and negative aspects of nuclear energy’s use.

One negative article, which had one of the few stacked
heads coded for The Times of London, read:

X-RAY MARTYR
DR. IRONSIDE BRUCE DEAD.
DANGERS OF NEW TUBES.
The article, written by the medical correspondent, told

of how the young doctor had begun to use of the most powerful

tubes available, while using protective measures developed for

 

 

156
the less-powerful older tubes. "In his zeal to help others,
this brilliant young physician has sacrificed his own
life....his researches were of the most brilliant kind. His
martyrdom holds a quality of inspiration."”4
In spite of these words of loss, the overall tone of

medical coverage was that of balanced optimism, as was

observed in one of the few editorials coded in The Times of

 

London. The author wrote,

Attention is being called at present by many

competent observers to the increase which, year by

year, has been taking place in the incidence of
cancer. This is not a new warning, as those who

have followed the history of the disease are

aware....Both radium and the X-rays have strong

advocates [as treatments], and both have certainly
succeeded in particular instances and as certainly
failed in others.

This cautious optimism gave way to positive research in
the last article coded from The Times of London. Inn this
article, the medical correspondent did not cover the usual X-
ray beat, but instead concentrated on a recently issued
scientific monograph about radium treatment of cancer. The
monograph experiment ran for 20 months and used radium in "the
largest quantity hitherto made use of." This large amount of
the expensive element was acquired in 1919 "from innumerable
gunsights, watch dials, and other instruments of war." The
article was based on the data from the monograph, and because
of this it was very detailed and even gave a chart of the
success rates of the treatment. "These results, as can be

seen, are chiefly important as showing that something can be

done." Even after the war, radium’s use in it was generating

157
positive stories.“6
Nature’s last piece 'was also a :medical story, but
concerned the use of X-rays as opposed to radium, ‘The article
discussed the opening of a new X-ray department at the
Manchester Royal Infirmary. "The new department is on the
ground-floor, is well lighted and ventilated, possesses
generous head room, and is cheerfully decorated, all features
which are stressed in the recommendations of the X-ray and
Radium Protection Committee."137
X—rays were also the topic of Science’s last piece in
the sample. It discussed the use of quantum theory to
calculate the wave length and number of quanta used to create
an energy releasing chemical reaction. "On account of the
large effect produced by relatively small amounts of energy,
it seems that the use of X rays may acquire great importance
in the production of organic compounds, especially if
substances are produced in this manner which can not be
obtained by other means."138
The last New York Times article coded, from December 28,
1922, also fell into a discovery category. It dealt with a
practical use of radium, relaying how scientists were able to
photograph the smashing of atoms with alpha particles. The
alpha particles were emitted from radium into an enclosure
full of air supersaturated with water. All the dust had been
pumped from the box so that, as the high—speed particles
traveled through the mist, they left a water vapor trail which

was then photographed.139

158
In just 26 years the sources of Roentgen’s and the
Curies’ mysterious rays had been tracked down and
photographed. Much of this journey had been covered on the
pages of elite newspapers and science journals from around

the world.”0

159

CHAPTER SIX
NOTES

1. James B. Conant, Science and Common Sense (New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1951), p. 27.
2. Derek J. de S. Price, "The parallel structures of science
and technology," in Science In Context. eds. Barry Barnes and
David Edge (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 170.
3. The New York Times, 7 February 1896, p. 9.
4. The New York Times, 12 February 1896, p. 9.

5. The New York Times, 21 March 1896, p. 5.

6. The New York Times, 6 September 1896, pp. 12-13.

 

 

 

7. The Times of London, 28 February 1896, p. 13.
8. The Times of London, 10 March 1896, p. 12.

9. The Times of London, 14 January 1897, p. 14.
10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Science, 24 January 1896, p. 131.

13. Science, 26 June 1896, p. 926.

14. Science, 19 November 1897, p. 766.

15. The Times of London, 6 November 1897, p. 12.
16. Nature, 23 January 1896, p. 274.

17. Science, 14 February 1896, p. 227.

18. The New York Times, 27 June 1897, p. 17.

19. The New York Times, 2 November 1901, p. 1.
20. The Times of London, 19 April 1898, p. 4.

21. The Times of London, 8 February 1901, p. 11.

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
111;
1898,
45.

46.

47.

160
The Neg York Timee, 27 April 1897, p. 5.
TmeeNew York Timee, 31 July 1897, p. 6.
The New York Timee, 2 January 1898, p. 12.

The New York Times, 1 November 1902, p. 16.

 

Ibid.

The New York Times, 18 December 1902, p. 9.

The Times of London, 3 November 1900, p. 4.

The Storv of The Timee, p. 185.

The Times of London, 6 November 1897, p. 12.

Nature, 6 February 1896, p. 324.

Ibid.

Science, 6 March 1896, pp. 344-346.

The New York Times, 31 July 1897, p. 6.

Nature, 9 December 1897, p. 135.

Nature, 12 March 1896, p. 455.

Nature, 11 February 1897, p. 359.

Science, 24 July 1896, p. 114.

Nature, 8 April 1897, p. 541.

Nature, 22 April 1897, p. 590.

Nature, 21 April 1898, p. 600.

Science, 22 January 1897, p. 139.

Science, 26 June 1896, pp. 919-920.

Nature, 23 April 1896, p. 600; Nature, 4 June 1896, p.
Nature, 21 October 1897, p. 600; Nature, 24 February
p. 408.

Nature, 26 November 1896, p. 81.

Nature, 4 June 1896, p. 118.

Nature, 23 April 1896, p. 581.

48.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

161
Nature, 16 November 1899, p. 71.
Nature, 13 June 1901, p. 157.
Science, 7 September 1900, p. 369.
Ibid., p. 368.
Science, 12 July 1901, p. 53.

The New York Times, 11 December 1903, p. 1; The Times of

London, 25 March 1903, p. 10.

53.

The Times of London, 14 January 1897, p. 14; The Times

of London, 26 January 1898, p. 12.

54.

55.

Science, 31 July 1903, p. 155.

The NemeYork Times, 11 December 1903, p. 1; Nature, 1

November 1906, p. 15.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

The Times of London, 25 March 1903, p. 10.
Ibid.

The Times of London, 13 August 1903, p. 6.
The Nem:gork Times, 8 May 1904, p. 6.

The Times of London, 28 March 1903, p. 14.
The Times of London, 2 April 1903, p. 8.

The New York Times, 23 December 1903, p. 10.
Science, 10 June 1904, p. 899.

Nature, 20 September 1906, p. 516.

Ibid.

Science, 14 September 1906, p. 347.

Nature, 20 September 1906, p. 516.

The New York Times, 28 July 1907, p. 17.

The Times of London, 12 December 1907, p. 6.
Science, 2 August 1907, p. 158.

The Times of London, 19 September 1908, p. 11.

Science, 4 December 1908, p. 805.

162

 

 

73. The New York Times, 20 June 1905, p. 1.
74. The Nevaork Timee, 6 February 1904, p. 6.
75. The Times of London, 2 August 1906, p. 14.
76. The Times of London, 20 April 1906, p. 7.
77. Nature, 26 April 1906, p. 612.

78. Eve Curie, Madame Curie,

(Doubleday, Doran & Co.,

Inc.:

Garden City, N.Y., 1937), pp. 247, 256 & 253.

 

79. The Times of London, 10 November 1906
80. Curie, p. 159.

81. Nature, 24 September 1903, p. 496.
82. Science, 28 May 1909, p. 866.

83. Science, 18 October 1907, p. 528.

84. 'Science, 2 December 1910, p. 805.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85. The New York Times, 24 July 1904, p.
86. The Times of London, 21 May 1909, p.
87. The Times of London, 2 August 1911,
88. The New York Times, 1 June 1906, p.
89. The Times of London, 16 April 1909,
90. The Times of London, 5 May 1909, p. 1
91. The Times of London, 28 July 1901, p.
92. The Times of London, 14 July 1906, p.
93. The New York Times, 7 April 1907, p.
94. The New York Times, 31 December 1903,
95. -Science, 23 september 1921, p. 277;
1922, p. 295.

96. Nature, 11 May 1911, p. 340.

97. Ibid.

98. The Times of London, 27 February 1907

 

p.

p.

, p. 10.

21.

12.

5.

1.

4.
3.

14.
4.
17.
p. 8.

Science, 17 March

p. 6.

I

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

163

The Nemegork Times, 9 February 1913, p. 4.

The Times of London, 5 February 1912, p. 3.

The New York Times, 4 January 1914, sec. 5, p. 1.
The Times of London, 2 April 1913, p. 8.

The Times of London, 6 December 1913, p. 5.

Nature, 9 October 1913, p. 172.

105. The Times of London, 3 October 1913, p. 6.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

The Times of London, 19 January 1915, p. 11.

The Times of London, 10 March 1919, p. 7.

Nature, 11 February 1915, p. 663.

Nature, 31 January 1918, p. 438.

Nature, 26 February 1920, p. 696.

The New York Timee, 20 July 1919, p. 9.

The New York Timee, 18 September 1919, p. 13.
The Times of London, 14 August 1918, p. 3.
The Times of London, 3 October 1913, p. 6.
The New York Times, 6 October 1913, p. 3.

The Times of London, 5 February 1912, p. 8.
The New York Times, 24 October 1913, p. 1.
The New York Times, 15 January 1914, p. 2.
Science, 31 October 1913, p. 612.

Nature, 30 January 1919, p. 427.

Nature, 1 July 1915, p. 494.

The New York Times, 18 September 1919, p. 13.
Science, 24 October 1919, p. 388.

Science, 24 July 1914, p. 115.

Nature, 22 April 1915, p. 199.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140. Eventually Ramsay’s transmutation was further explored
by Marie Curie’s daughter Irene, who generated knowledge that
eventually led to the practical utilization of nuclear energy
(Taton, p. 218.). The ether, though still discussed, fell
from favor as it was realized that the energy rays could
travel independently through space without any supporting

164
Nature, 5 February 1914, p. 632.

Science, 21 November 1919, p. 467.

The New York Times, 18 May 1921, p. 17.

.The New York Times, 20 May 1921, p. 3.

The Times of London, 25 May 1921, p. 9.
Science, 1 July 1921, p. 1.

The Times of London, 5 January 1922, p. 9.
The Times of London, 16 February 1922, p. 10.
The Times of London, 23 March 1921, p. 10.
The Times of London, 20 August 1921, p. 9.
The Times of London, 6 March 1922, p. 9.
Nature, 2 December 1922, pp. 753-754.
Science, 25 August 1922, p. 231.

The New York Times, 28 December 1922, p. 4.

force such as an ether.

CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUSION

The data reveal that The New York Times’s and The Times
of London’s coverage:of the early exploration of modern atomic
theory evolved along with the new discoveries. A definite
pattern of increased coverage of the differing sides of
complex issues developed over time.

Science and Nature took a more neutral stance toward the
early discoveries and technologies than did the newspapers,
Nature being the most neutral with a figure of about 83% as
opposed to 65% for Science and around 53% for each of the
newspapers.

The more detailed coding definitions and analysis allowed
this study to produce more accurate and thus slightly
different percentages of tones than were found i111flua pre-
study. Still, as in the first study, the pattern of coverage
was similar between journal and newspaper, ax; Caudill had
found in his previous study concerning Darwin.

The time lapse between certain discoveries anui their
coverage in the publications, such as the delay in peak radium
coverage from 1898 to 1903, gives evidence of the existence
of complex factors needed to make the pages of the media.

Even the science journals were slow to publish material on

165

166

radium until more startling characteristics of the phenomena
were discovered, such as the ability to generate its own.heat.
Thus, even though great things were expected of the new
element from early in its discovery, these expectations were
not entirely believed or rewarded until the scientific world
had time to work and test them. Ultimate approval was granted
with the awarding of the 1903 Nobel Prize.

Some of this lack of coverage may have occurred as a
backlash to the great amount of coverage that X-rays had
elicited when they hit the scene. It’s almost as if the
revelations about X-rays had taken away the initial novelty
from radium, discovered just two years later. This points to
a.window“where being first.is heralded—~X-rays being initially
defined as the more important radiation phenomena because of
its status as fore-runner. This changed as the new discovery
was found to possess different and. more powerful
characteristics.

While nuclear coverage lagged a bit behind most of the
newsworthy events both in the journals and in the newspapers,
the journals did scoop the papers often. This is to be
expected for such specialized periodicals; but.while they'gave
earlier coverage to nuclear issues, the journals’ overall
coverage was less broad both in terms of tone and categories-
-Science having the broader coverage of the two journals.

The large number of reprinted articles found in all the
publications indicates that science news travelled regularly

from publication to publication, country to country and

167

continent to continent. Many of these reprinted stories were
seen to originate with Nature, which fits with its practice
of carrying the proceedings and contents of many different
science societies and journals as well as early reports on new
methods and subsequent follow up studies. But newspapers also
generated early coverage of nuclear science and technology,
as did other journals.

Sensational pieces were found in both newspapers, but
the journals also carried the hopeful and overzealous words
of excited researchers. Suggestions and images of radium and
X-rays as remedies for social ills, as well as magical in
power, were common in all publications. Early nuclear science
and technology were seen as a way out of an impending energy
crisis, and also were quickly'put.onto the battlefield to help
treat the wounded. Those who controlled these mysterious
powers were referred to as high priestesses and great
scientists. Among these power wielding, magic-like
references, a few images of radium’s destructive powers also

appeared.

 

In Nuclear Fear, Weart brushed off the early negative
press coverage given the nuclear issue, in part, because the
harm happened mostly to doctors and technicians and also
because larger and more gruesome disasters were prevalent in
the newspapers of the time.1 While the data generally support
Weart’s headline analysis that there was little negative
coverage during this period, headlines in this study were seen

to be only a marginally accurate representation of the tone

168
of the coverage in the newspapers. The New York Times’s
headlines were found to be more varied in tone than the
stories that followed, whereas The Times of London’s headlines
were found to be more neutral than the subsequent stories.

While most of the early stories presented neutral and
positive representations of the issues, harmful aspects of
the technology were written about early. In addition, more
and more newspaper stories began to present better balanced
articles about radium and X-rays across time, with 1914 and
1921 being the years in which the most such balanced stories
were coded.

While Weart noted that the lack of early public concern
over radiation danger was because the people who were most
often hurt by these new technologies were those workers and
doctors who used them, a few stories of patient lawsuits were
present- .. throughout the study, as well as mentions of the
proper and ethical application of this new technology. Just
as Weart noted the presence of a sub—conscious cultural fear
after the 19205 about the potential danger of human meddling
with natural forces, this study reveals that stories with
similar cautious whispers and warnings were present from the
beginning of the second scientific revolution. Through a
balanced optimism that called for replication of results and
sound scientific method, these voices formed a counterpoint
to the heralded sounds of success favoring nuclear
technologies as methods of relieving all human suffering.

Stories of cure-alls and the regeneration of life were found

169
along with scientific debates and lawsuits by patients who
had been burned by sparking X-ray machines.

For stories such as these it is not possible in this study
to test how accurately they represented what their expert
sources had said. Still, many stories contained a high
percentage of direct quotes from experts, leaving little room
for mis-representation. Often the experts themselves wrote
the articles (n1 nuclear issues, with. more such stories
occurring in the journals. The journals also contained more
sources per story, as is to be expected because of their use
of laboratory reports and scientific speeches--forms which
follow the practice of reporting all relevant previous
research.

Science writers’ habit of reporting experts’ words
verbatim may have arisen because of the novelty of the
difficult and technical topics covered, but also can be seen
as limiting the media’s interpretation of these same
technologies. The science experts were surely presenting
their own agendas in their speeches and interviews, yet these
views were hardly ever revealed or interpreted in the coverage
of the period. Yet a few corrective stories by scientists and
editors alike were found. :Ul addition, scientific debates
were covered by the media, indicating an investment of space
on their part and thus a sign of significance.

Scientists too indicated that they were very aware of
the public and its perception of the new science and its

facts. They sometimes raised questions about the accuracy

170
and completeness of the coverage found in the newspapers, but
most often this inaccuracy appeared to be related to the
airing of differing scientific views as opposed to inaccurate
reporting.

It is not possible within the scope of this study to
determine the agenda-setting effect of early coverage of
nuclear issues, but it is clear that the issues were often
placed.before the public, mostly in stories with neutral tone,
with both positive and negative aspects sometimes included.
Evidence of how important the public perceived nuclear issues
to be comes from the numerous mentions made of them by
scientists and journalists alike--both groups were concerned
with how the nuclear stories were being perceived by the
reading public. This occurred even before WW-I, in what is
historically thought of as a low point in the popularizing of
science.

Further study in this area might compare science and
technology coverage with that of business and/or national
government during the same period. Additionally, more
publications could be added to better study the effects of
media competition on science coverage. Research into the
context and images of current press coverage of new science
and technologies would also help to understand the role of

science in our society.

This study has pointed to how potent new scientific

discoveries can be. The resulting technologies were seen to

171

have both positively and negatively affected lives, while
those who possessed the technologies and their secrets
attained both wealth and fame. The coverage came at a time
when science and industry were more and more looked to as
tools of hope and betterment of life for both rich and poor.
Egalitarian applications of the new and powerful technologies
were spread throughout the coverage.

In addition to images of power, destruction and wealth,
the coverage of the nuclear issue also carried explanations
and language that suggested the mystery and complexity of the
issues. Due to this complexity, much of the media’s coverage
was verbatim reports from one expert, without any
interpretation or inclusion of contradictory sources. This
raises a question regarding the current state of science
writing.

Recall that many researchers agree that large numbers of
the population get their science news from the print media,
and that the current trend is for mostly verbatim reporting
from media aware experts. The question then becomes: If the
trend.of reporting science news verbatinlcontinues with little
interpretation, how will this affect the culture when dealing
with the powerful effects of future science and technology?

In this era of AIDS and recurrence of drug-resistant
strains of diseases such as tuberculosis, people look to the
scientists and the medical practioners for answers. Powerful
diseases such these are frightening-~invoking a fear of death

and of loss of control over one’s life. As new technologies

172
come out of the laboratories claiming to aid or cure today’s
feared diseases, it is important to look back to how such
technologies were received in the past.

This study showed that initially nuclear technologies
were well received, and were looked to as a technological fix
for all areas of life--energy, health and defense.
Nevertheless, these technologies were not cure-alls; they
possessed their own.dangers and hazards. Yet the voices which
asserted such cautions were muffled by the louder voices of
hope and need. In a time when society was benefiting from
the machines of the industrial revolution many felt sure, at
least at first, that the scientists had discovered a
technological savior. Many scientists, patients, doctors and
people on the street wanted the cure—all; they wanted a device
that would take the fear of death out of cancer; they wanted
a source that would solve all energy crises.

But this study showed that the true nature and safe use
of the technologies took time to evolve. We know now, after
almost a century, that nuclear devices only help in certain
cancers, and that nuclear energies have yet to solve all
energy needs. It is important for the media to remember the
lessons of the past as they look toward covering the

scientific breakthroughs of today and tomorrow.

173

CHAPTER SEVEN

NOTES

1. Weart, p. 52.

APPENDIX

174

APPENDIX

CODING DEFINITIONS

Periodical: Publication in which selected article was
published.

Headline: Bolded or large font size story caption above text.

Byline: To include author of article and titles as well as
affiliation such as a scientist, doctor, industry worker,
governmental.

Dateline: Date of and location from which story was written.

Article length will be measured in lines by counting the lines
in the first three inches of each story, measured from the
first ascender to the last full line, then calculating the
average lines per inch. ALI is then multiplied by the length
of story in inches. Caution is to be taken to notice any
change in print or column size in any given article, and a new
ALI is to be calculated where applicable.

Pieces Coded: Includes articles or stories, speeches and
lectures, abstracts of other stories, editorials and letters
to the editor.

A: Articles are defined as any indexed communication
of facts in any form and any size, blurb or full
length story, and can be both feature and news
related.

B: Speeches and Lectures are defined as pieces which
originated from public forums. Some are paraphrased
while other are direct reprints. For the reprints,
the author was coded as such under byline.

C: Abstracts are defined are brief mentions of other
stories, studies, often including the title, author,
subject studied and main finding.

D: Editorials are defined as opinion pieces written
by staff of the publication.

17
E: Letters to the Editor are defined as
communications submitted to the publication by
people other than staff. Usually include the name
and occupation or qualification of the author.

Tone: Defined as the position and/or messages and images the
segment of the article presents on the nuclear issue(s).

A: Positive is coded when the headline/lead/story
suggested, implied or stated that the nuclear
issue(s) was beneficial, helpful, good or useful to

individuals and/or' societyu The topic of the
article was presented in a benevolent and good
light.

B: Neutral is coded when the headline/lead/story
neither indicated, accused, implied or stated that
the nuclear issue(s) was good, bad, helpful or
harmful to society or individuals nor did it redeem,
promote, or destroy them in any way. Articles that
were well balanced in presenting alternating
opinions are also included in this category.

C: Neqetive is coded when the headline/lead/story
suggested, implied or stated that the nuclear
issue(s) was harmful, fatal, or dangerous to living
beings and or society. In these articles, the
reader received a message of caution or disdain
toward the nuclear issue(s) or a feeling that the
technology or science should be approached with
caution or dread.

Article Categories: Categories of articles are broken into
discovery, power, military, medicine, price & supply, multiple
and other.

A: Discovery articles deal with the advancement of
scientific, medical technological and theoretical
knowledge of nuclear related materials including X-
rays.

B: Power articles deal with the use of nuclear
related materials including X-rays to generate
energy for human use.

C: Military articles deal with the use of nuclear
related materials including X-rays in terms of war
time destruction, protection or deterrent.

176

D: Medical articles deal with the use of nuclear
related materials including Xkrays being used or
studied for use in treating illness or other life
threatening ailments or health threats.

E: Price and supply stories deal with the cost of
nuclear related materials and technology including
X-rays as well as the availability and methods use
to acquire and produce nuclear related material.

F: Multiple stories are defined as stories in which
more than one of the above categories appear. Each
story type should be recorded.

G: Other stories are defined as stories that do not
fit in any of the above categories.

Art: Art being photographs, charts and line drawings used to
illustrate the coded story.

Sources: Sources are defined as the expert or witness cited
in regards to the story. The institution of the source is
important i.e. medical, governmental, educational, non-
profit, layperson or any other included affiliation of source
with an larger institution.

Medical sources are coded when referred to as working with
health care or when such a title is given. They can be either
academic or non-aligned private health care workers.

Science sources are coded when referred to as an expert in an
area of science or when such a title is given. They can be
either academic or non-aligned private science workers.

Industrial sources are coded when referred to as being
affiliated with a corporate/industrial or other private money
making enterprise.

Industrial-Medical sources are medical workers or experts
affiliated with corporate/industrial enterprise.

Industrial-Scientific sources are science workers or experts
affiliated with corporate/industrial enterprise.

Military sources are coded when referred to as working for
some defense institution or project if no other affiliation
is given.

Military-Medical sources are medical workers or experts
affiliated with defense institutions or projects.

177

Military-Scientific sources are science workers cnr experts
affiliated with defense institutions or projects.

Institutional sources are coded when referred to as working
for a non-profit, a charity or a independent regulatory body.

Institutional-Medical sources are medical workers or experts
affiliated with an institutional enterprise.

Institutional-Scientific sources are science workers or
experts affiliated with an institutional enterprise.

Governmental sources are coded when referred to aS‘working for
a regulatory agency or unit affiliated with a public governing
body.

Governmental-Medical sources are medical workers or experts
affiliated with a public governing body.

Governmental-Scientific sources are science workers or experts
affiliated with a public governing body.

Governmental-Legal sources are legal workers or experts
affiliated with a public governing body.

Layperson sources are coded when no other affiliation is
mentioned and no references to any particular expertise or
skill is given.

Legal sources are coded when referred to as a non-aligned
worker or expert in practicing and interpreting public law.

Author sources are coded when referred to as the writer of a
book, both fictional and non-fictional, and if no other
professional qualifications are given.

Publication sources are coded when any magazine, newspaper,
journal. or any' other' periodic: printed. work is cited or
referred to.

Other sources are coded when the person or item referred to
does not fit any of the above source categories.

Sample sentence: To be used for any particularly interesting
part of article that helps relay the point of view of the
article or metaphors used in communicating nuclear issue
covered.

178

 

 

Coding Sheet
Coder #
Date _ Periodical
Article # Date of Article

 

Page, Column & Position

 

Headline Summary

 

 

Byline

 

Dateline

 

SPACE MEASUREMENT & TONE:

Head Lines, Size & Columns

 

 

Article Lines

 

Article Format

 

O=Article, 1=EditoriaL 2=Letter To Editor
Headline Tone:-

Lead Tone for Article:

 

Story Tone:

 

0 = Positive, 1 2 Neutral, ‘2 = Negative

Article Category:

 

0 = Discovery, 1 = Power, 2: Military, 3 = Medicine, 4 2 Price &Supply,
5 2 Multiple, 6 = Other.

AIt

 

Sources (Cited/Number)

 

 

 

 

1,"

Sample Sentence and Metaphors:

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asimov, Isaac The History of Physics. New York: Walker and
Company, 1984.

Atwater, Tony "Reader vInterest in Environmental News."
Newspaper Research Journal 10 (Fall 1988): 31-38.

Atwater, Tony, Salwen, Michael, and Anderson, Ronald B. "Media
Agenda-Setting With Environmental Issues."
Journalism Quarterly 62 (Summer 1985): 393-397.

Babbie, Earl The Practice of Social Research. California:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1983.

Berger, Meyer The Story of The New York Times: 1851—1951. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1951.

Brand, Jeff B. "A Course of an Agenda: New York Times Coverage
of Television's Effects on Children, 1939 - 1972."
Term paper, School of Journalism, Michigan State
University, 1990.

Burkett, David Warren Writing Science News for the Mass Media.
Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Company, 1965.

Caudill, Ed "A Content Analysis of Press Views of Darwin's
Evolution Theory, 1860-1925." Journalism Quarterly
64 (Winter 1987): 782-786.

Cole, Bruce J. "Trends in Science and Conflict Coverage in
Four Metropolitan Newspapers." JournalisraQuarterly
52 (Autumn 1975): 465-471.

 

Culbertson, Hugh 1L, and Stempel, Guido 1L III "Possible
Barriers to Agenda Setting in Medical News."
Newspaper Research Journal 5(3): 53-60.

Curie, Eve Madame Curie. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran
& Co., 1937.

Davis, Elmer History of The New York Times: 1851-1921. New
York: The New York Times, 1921.

179

180

Demott, John "‘Interpretative' News Stories Compared with
‘Spot' News." Journalism Quarterly 50 (Spring 1973):
102-108.

Dunwoody, Sharon, Friedman, Sharon M. and Rogers, Carol L.
Scientists and Journalists. New York: The Free
Press, 1986.

Emery, Edwin and Emery, Michael The Press and America.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978.

Fishman, Mark Manufacturing the News. Austin, Texas:
University of Texas Press, 1980.

Friedman, Sharon M., Villamil, Kara, Suriano, Robyn.and Egolf,
Brenda "Alar and Apples: Newspaper Coverage of a
Major Risk Issue." Paper Presented to the Magazine
Division and the Science Writers Educators Group,
Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, Mass.,
August 1991.

Glynn, Carroll J. "Science Reporters and Their Editors Judge
‘Sensationalism' . " Newspaper Research Journal 6: 69-
74.

Goldstein, Jeffery H. Reporting Science. Communication Series.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated,
Publishers, 1986.

Hay, Carolyn D. "A History of Science Writing in The United
States and of the National Association of Science
Writers." Master's Thesis, Medill School of
Journalism, Northwestern University, 1970.

Hines, Neal O. "Atomic Energy and The Press Two Years After
Hiroshima." Journalism Quarterly 24 (1947): 315-
322.

Howenstine, Erick "Environmental Reporting: Shift from 1970
to 1982." JOurnalism Quarterly 64 (Winter 1987):

 

842-846.
Hungerford, Steven E., and Lemert, James B. "Covering the
Environment: A New ‘Afghanistanism'?." Journalism

 

Quarterly 50 (Autumn 1973): 475-481.

Kevles, Daniel J. The Physicists. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1978.

181

Larson, Erik "Comparison of The New York Times's and Science's
Coverage of the Birth of Modern Atomic Theory: 1896-
1922." Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Boston, Mass., August 1991.

Lewenstein, Bruce V. "Testing Truisms about Science and the
Mass Media: The Case of Cold Fusion." Paper
Presented at the Annual Convention of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Boston, Mass., August 1991.

Lichter, Linda S., & 8. Robert and Rothman, Stanley The Media
Elite. Adler & Adler, 1986.

Logan, Robert A. "Commentary: Rationales for Investigative and
Explanatory Trends in Science Reporting." Newspaper
Research Journal 7 (Fall 1985): 53-58.

MacLeod, Roy M. "Retrospect: The British Association and its
Historians." The Parliment of Science. Edited by
Roy Macleod and Peter Collins. Northwood: Science
Reviews Ltd., 1981.

McCombs, Maxwell E., and Shaw, Donald L. "The Agenda-Setting
Function of the Press." Emergence of American
Political Issues. Edited by Maxwell E. McCombs and
Donald L. Shaw. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing
Co., 1977.

McKenzie, A. E. E. The Major Achievements of Science. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Merrill, John C., and Odell, S. Jack Philosophy and
Journalism. New York: Longman, 1983.

Miraldi, Robert Muckrakinq and Objectivity. New York:
Greenwood Press, 1990.

Moore, Barbara and Singletary, Michael "Scientific Sources'
Perceptions of Network News Accuracy." Journalism
Quarterly 62 (Winter 1985): 816-823.

Mott, Frank Luther American Journalism. New York: Macmillan,
1967.

Nelkin, Dorothy Sellinq,Science. New York: W. H. Freeman and
Company, 1987.

Nunn, Clyde Z. "Readership and Coverage of Science and
Technology' in Newspapers." Journalism Quarterly
(Spring 1979): 27-30.

182

Rhees, David J. "A New Voice for Science: Science Service
Under Edwin E. Slosson, 1921-1929." Master's Thesis,
History Department, The University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, 1979.

Ryan, Michael "A Factor Analytic Study of Scientists'
Responses to Errors." Journalism Quarterly 52
(Summer 1975): 333-336.

Schiller, Dan "A Historical Approach to Objectivity and
Professionalism in American News Reporting. " Journal
of Communication 29 (Autumn 1979): 47-57.

Schudson, Michael Discovering the News. New York: 1978.

Segre, Emilio From X-Raye to Quarks. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman and Company, 1976.

Shaw, Donald L. "News Bias and the Telegraph: A Study of
Historical Change." Journalism.Quarterly 44 (Spring
1967): 3-12.

Sohn, Ardyth 8. "Newspaper Agenda-Setting and Community
Expectations." Journalism Quarterly 61 (Winter
1984): 892-898.

Storad, Conrad J. "Who Are the Metropolitan Daily Newspaper
Science Journalists, And How Do They Work?"
Newspaper Research Journal 6 (Fall 84): 39-48.

Talese, Gay The Kingdem and the Power. New York: The World
Publishing Company, 1969.

Tankard, James W. and Ryan, Michael "News Source Perceptions
of Accuracy of Science Coverage." Journalism Quarterly
51 (Summer 1974): 219-334.

Tichenor, Phillip‘J., Olien, Clarice N., Harrison, Annette and
Donohue, George "Mass Communication Systems and
Communication Accuracy in Science News Reporting."
Journalism Quarterly 47 (Winter 1970): 673-683.

Trefil, James S. From Atoms to Quarks. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1980.

Tuchman, Gaye Making News. New York: The Free Press, 1978.

Tunstall, Jeremy The Media in Britain. London: Constable,
1983.

Weart, Spencer R. Nuclear Fear. Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1988.

183

Weaver, David H., and Wilhoit, G. Cleveland The American
Journalist. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University
Press, 1986.

Weaver, Jefferson.Hane, ed. The World of Physics. Vol 1-4. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.

Wilkins, Lee "Between Facts and Values: Print Media Coverage
of the Greenhouse Effect, 1987-1990." Paper Presented at
the Science Writers Education Group/Magazine Division at
the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, Mass., August
1991.

Woods, Oliver and Bishop, James The Story'of'The Times London:
Michael Joseph, 1983.

General References

Aaserud, Finn Redirecting Science: Niels Bohr. Philanthropy.
and the Rise of Nuclear Physics. Cambridge, Eng.:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Aubrey, Crispin, ed. Nukespeak: The Media and the Bomb.
Comedia/Minority Press Group Series, no. 9. London:
Comedia Publishing Group, 1982.

Chang, Won H. "Coverage of Unification Issue In North and
South Korean Papers." Journalism Quarterly 58 (Winter
1981): 589-593. -‘

Chant, Colin, ed. Science. Technology and Everyday Life 1870-
1950. The Open University: Routledge, 1989.

Chilton, Paul Language and the Nuclear Arms Debate: Nukespeak
Today. Open Linguistics Series. London and Dover,
N.H.: Frances Pinter, 1985.

Conant, James B. Science and Common Sense. New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press, 1951.

Davison, W. Phillips International Political Communication.
New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1965.

Day, Stacey B., ed. Communication of Scientific Information.
New York: S. Karger, 1975.

de S. Price, Derek J. "The Parallel Structures of Science and
Technology." Science In Context. Edited by Barry
Barnes and David Edge. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT
Press, 1982.

184

Doorman, S.J., ed. Images of Science. Aldershot, Eng.: Gower,
1989.

Dunwoody, Sharon and Ryan, Michael "The Credible Scientific
Source." Journalism Quarterly (Spring 1987): 21-
27.

Dunwoody, Sharon.and Scott, Byron‘T. "Scientists as'Mass.Media
Sources." Journalism Quarterly 59 (Spring 1982): 52-
57.

Eurich, Nell Science in Utopia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1967.

Evered, David and O'Connoer, Maeve, eds. Communicating Science
to the Public. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.

Ford, Daniel The Cult of The Atom. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1982.

Edelstein, Alex 8. Comparative Communication Research Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications, 1982.

Funkhouser, Ray G. and Maccoby, Nathan "Tailoring Science
Writing to the General Audience." JournalismeQuarterly
50 (Summer 1973): 220-226.

Glynn, Carroll J. and Tims, Albert R. "Sensationalism in
Science Issues: A Case Study." Journalism Quarterly
(Spring 1982): 126-131.

Goodfield, June Reflections on Science and The Media. New
York: American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1981.

Grunig, James E. "Three Stopping Experiments on the
Communication of Science." Journalism Quarterly 51
(Autumn 1974): 387-399.

Hinkle, Gerald and Elliott, William R. "Science Coverage in
Three Newspapers and Three Supermarket Tabloids."
Journalism Quarterly 66 (Summer 1989): 353-358.

Hornig, Susanna "Science Stories: Risk, Power and Perceived
Emphasis." Journalism Quarterly 67 (Winter 1990):
767-766.

Hughes, David Y. and Philmus, Robert M., eds. H. G. Wells:
Early Writings in Science and Science Fiction. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press, 1975.

Hyde, Michael J. Communication Philosophy and the
Technological Aqe. University of Alabama: The University
of Alabama Press, 1982.

185

Johnson, Kenneth G. "Dimensions of Judgment of Science News
Stories." Journalism Quarterly 40 (Summer 1963):
315-322.

Krieghbaum, Hillier "Reporting Science Information through the
Mass Media." Journalism Quarterly 40 (Summer 1963):
291-292.

Kronick, David A. A Histomy of Scientific and Technical
Periodicalee New York: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.,

1962.

MacLeod, Roy M., ed. Technology and the Human Prospect.
London: Frances Pinter, 1986.

Manuel, Frank E. Utopias and Utopian Thought. Cambridge,
Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1966.

iMeadows, A.J., ed. The Scientific (Journal. Aslib IReader
Series, vol. 2. London: Aslib, 1979.

Nelkin, Dorothy Nuclear Pomer and Its Critics: The Cayuga Lake
Controversy, Ithaca, N.Y. and London: Cornell
University Press, 1971.

Patterson, Joye, Booth, Laurel and Smith, Russel "Who Reads
About Science?" Journalistuarterly 46 (Autumn
1969): 599-602.

Pulford, D. Lynn "Follow-Up Study of Science News Accuracy."
Journalism Quarterly 53 (Spring 1976): 119-122.

Reingold, Nathan Science. American Style New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press, 1991.

Sedgwick, W. T. and Tyler, H. W. A Short History of Science.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1919.

Shaw, Donald L. and Nevel, Paul Van "The Informative Value of
Medical Science News." Journalism Quarterly 44
(Autumn 1967): 548.

Smith, Nelson and Theberge, Leonard J. Energy Coverage-Media
Panic. New York and London: Longman, 1983.

Tarleton, Raymond "Accuracy and Comprehension in Science News
Writing." JournaliSILQuarterly 30 (Winter 1953): 69-
71.

Williams, Francis Dangerous Estate Cambridge: Patrick
Stephens, 1957.

"1111111111“