There are two issues here:

1) What one reads in newspapers and popular magazines is usually a
very simplified and sometimes completely distorted account of scientific
research (and sometimes of an activity that is neither scientific nor
research).  If journalists can't get straight a few facts about classical
music when reporting on, say, a new musicological/musical discovery, why
should we trust that they know enough science to write about it without
making errors or even writing nonsense?

2) The connections between anatomy & physiology and human behavior in a
given culture are not as simple and direct as popular accounts have it.
To be honest, it is probably not possible to describe them adequately
in a popular newspaper article.  I'm afraid that unless one has a really
good understanding of (and preferably background in) both biology and
sociomusicology, all - well, almost all - one will achieve by talking
about it are empty speculations.

Finally, I wonder why you assumed that the article referred to tonal music
only.  Only Mozart was mentioned in the article, but that doesn't imply
that all music they used was Mozart.  Furthermore, Bartok's music falls
basically into the category of extended tonality (with few exceptions),
so while it may sound very modern to you, by listening to it you are not
really leaving the realm of tonal music.  Therefore your question is not
really about "classical" vs.  "modern", but "strictly tonal" vs.  "not so
strictly tonal", notwithstanding your request to regard Bartok as modern
for the purpose of your posting.

-Margaret