Using social contact and social identity theories, I seek to show how attitudes of mainstream American society toward individuals of Middle-Eastern descent (Arabs) have changed eight years after September 11, 2001 when compared to similar data from shortly after the terrorist attacks. I use data gathered from nationally representative opinion polls and the theoretical constructs of social contact theory and social identity theory to understand how attitudes have changed in the eight-year period. I first provide a firm grounding in the social contact and social identity literature, analyze the race/attitudinal data, and finally show how both social identity and social contact theories are useful when looking at attitudes toward Arabs post September 11, 2001. Initially, I expect that an inverse reaction to social contact will be observed leading to negative attitudes. At the same time, I expect that shared social identity will increase over time and positively affect attitudes toward Arabs. The results suggest that greater contact does not necessarily lead to positive attitudes about an out-group (in this case the Arab minority). In addition, the results show social identity's ability to affect attitudes decreases over time. I conclude that the ability to change attitudes is dependent on an individual developing greater understanding and knowledge of the out-group thereby expanding social identity. I argue that this is a useful method to decrease out-group prejudice. I conclude the two theories are useful as they both can inform public policy campaigns and public perception.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

It has been more than ten years since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, but the events related to the attacks are still a focus for the whole world. This study examined the news coverage of the 9/11 tenth anniversary from Phoenix TV and CNN, which are among the most influential news media in China and the U.S., respectively. A systematic content analysis was performed using latest news, opinion articles, photographs, and videos as classified by CNN and Phoenix TV on their commemorative 9/11 tenth anniversary websites. Framing theory guided this thesis project. The results offer some evidence regarding differences in the selection and use of frames in the U.S. and Chinese media. Results also suggest that global media share news resources for global events. / Master of Arts

In releasing the songs "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)" and "American Soldier" in the aftermath of September 11, country artist Toby Keith enacts a tradition that has been established in the world of country music since the Civil War, that of producing wartime songs of patriotism. I conducted an organic analysis of both songs as rhetorical acts produced and consumed within a particular rhetorical context. Because country music is fundamentally a discourse that celebrates the attitudes, values and experiences of its audience, I first analyzed these two songs as instances of epideictic rhetoric. As an epideictic rhetor, Keith reinforces the traditional values of the country music audience, uniting them in celebration of the communal identity that renders them a rhetorical community. That shared identity enables Keith to advance a rhetorical vision of a post-September 11 reality, attributing meaning to the events of September 11 and the ensuing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I use pentadic analysis to illuminate the vision presented in each song, and I utilize both media coverage and the Billboard charts to determine how well this vision "chained out" amongst the country music audience. Lastly, I utilize media coverage to explore the rhetorical context in which these songs were written and consumed. / Master of Arts

Title from first page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 104-110).

Jack Heggie's 2011 song cycle Pieces of 9/11: Memories from Houston is a collection of six songs with texts by Gene Scheer. Commissioned by the Houston Grand Opera, it was premiered on September 11, 2011 at the Rothko Chapel in Houston, TX. Based on interviews with people from Houston by Gene Scheer, this cycle tells stories and experiences by those affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, The Pentagon in Washington DC, and those aboard United Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Scheer's acclaimed storytelling in each song is beautifully set to varying styles of music composed by Heggie, with the familiar theme from Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, BWV 1007 woven throughout the cycle. This document is an in-depth look at the cycle to be used by vocal coaches and singers in their preparation and performance. The first introductory chapter is followed by a chapter detailing the song cycle from concept to fruition. The third chapter concentrates on the uses of Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, BWV 1007. The fourth chapter discusses the six individual songs first by discussing the background of each text, then an analysis of the music, and concluding with the relevance to 9/11. Chapter 5 includes performance notes, gathered from interviews with Heggie, Scheer, and one of the girl sopranos, Ashley Traughber. Appendices include a timeline of events on 9/11, the three interviews, a chronology of Jake Heggie's vocal works to date, and the author's personal 9/11 story as I was just a few blocks away from the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Technological, political and economical developments have fostered the spread of transnational media since the latter part of the 20th century. Despite that, most studies of media effects are still nationally bound. This dissertation discusses some of the effects that both national and transnational news media can have on people’s thoughts and feelings. It explores the particular effect of consensus building as a consequence of second level agenda-setting. The main focus of this dissertation is how national and transnational news media can bring different demographic groups closer in their perceptions of major topics in the news. This dissertation analyzes consensus building effects through the European Union’s reaction to the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States. It analyzes how the use of national and transnational media brought EU demographic groups in closer agreement regarding the attributes of the terrorism issue and of the Muslim and Arab communities, as they related to the events of 9-11 and its aftermaths for the EU community. This study is based on a secondary data analysis of a survey conducted in the close aftermath of 9-11. It is an extensive replication of Shaw and Martin’s (1992) consensus model based on a cross-national analysis of 15 European Union nations and their patterns of national and transnational news media use among four demographic groups in relation to the substantive and affective dimensions of attribute agendas regarding the aftermath of 9-11. This study found evidence that national media bring the segments of society to closer agreement regarding the attributes of terrorism and the attributes of the Muslim and Arab communities. This was especially true for those indicating they used national television. Transnational media also have some potential for similar effects, though less than for national media. Borders still matter but it will be interesting in the future to see if the increasing availability of transnational media translates into increased influence as well. / text

Qualifiées d’ « actes de guerre », les attaques du 11 septembre 2001 ont permis au Président George W. BUSH de justifier ses interventions militaires déclenchées contre les Etats qu’il désignait comme étant l’ « Axe du Mal » en référence à l’ « Empire du Mal » dénoncé par Ronald REAGAN. Le 18 septembre 2001, le Congrès américain confortait cette militarisation de la lutte contre le terrorisme en votant presque unanimement l’ « Authorization for Use of Military Force ». La réaction des Etats-Unis se résume en quatre mots bien précis : « guerre contre le terrorisme » (« War on Terrorism ») ou « guerre contre la terreur » (« War on terror »). Dès le 6 octobre 2001, cette « guerre » prend la forme d’un conflit armé international en Afghanistan et en Irak. L’objectif principal des Etats-Unis était d’éradiquer le terrorisme en détruisant l’organisation terroriste Al-Qaïda dont son leader Oussama BEN LADEN, que George W. BUSH voulait « mort ou vif » (« Wanted dead or Alive ») en référence à la justice expéditive du Far West. Ces conflits armés ont conduit à la capture des combattants taliban et membres d’Al-Qaïda sur de différents champs de bataille. C’est sur la base du Military Order du Président américain, qu’ils seront pour la plupart d’entres eux détenus à la base navale américaine de Guantanamo bay, qualifiés de « combattants illégaux », puis privés du statut de prisonnier de guerre. La pratique quotidienne de la torture par des soldats américains fera de Guantanamo une véritable « zone de non-droit ». Les détenus se sont retrouvés dans un « trou noir juridique » du fait de l’incertitude créée autour de leur statut juridique. Pourtant, la guerre est réglementée par le droit international humanitaire à travers les règles du jus ad bellum déterminant les situations dans lesquelles il est licite de recourir à la force, et le jus in bello réglementant la conduite d’une guerre. Ce corpus juridique est aujourd’hui largement codifié par les Conventions de Genève de 1949 et leurs Protocoles additionnels de 1977. Mais, la « guerre contre le terrorisme » est incontestablement une nouvelle forme de « guerre » qui n’avait pas été envisagée lors de l’adoption des Conventions de Genève. Une lecture attentive de ces conventions peut laisser penser que ces dispositions ne s’appliquent pas aux terroristes qui s’engagent dans des activités totalement contradictoires au droit de Genève. Si bien que, l’applicabilité et l’application de ce droit dans cette « guerre » semblent controversées, notamment en ce qui concerne le statut des personnes arrêtées puis détenues par les Etats-Unis. Toutefois, la constante du droit international humanitaire veut qu’il soit applicable dès qu’une situation de violence se transforme en conflit armé / Described as "acts of war", the attacks of 11 September 2001 enabled President George W. BUSH to justify his military interventions against the states he designated as the "Axis of Evil" "Empire of Evil" denounced by Ronald REAGAN. On September 18, 2001, the US Congress reinforced the militarization of the fight against terrorism by almost unanimously voting the "Authorization for Use of Military Force". The reaction of the United States can be summed up in four very specific words: "War on Terrorism" or "War on Terror". As early as 6 October 2001, this "war" took the form of an international armed conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. The main objective of the United States was to eradicate terrorism by destroying the terrorist organization al-Qaeda, including its leader Oussama BEN LADEN, whom George W. BUSH wanted "dead or alive" Reference to the expeditious justice of the Far West. These armed conflicts have led to the capture of Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda members on different battlefields. It is on the basis of the US President's Military Order that most of them will be detained at the US naval base in Guantanamo bay, described as "illegal combatants", and then deprived of prisoner-of-war status. The daily practice of torture by American soldiers will make Guantanamo a true "no-law zone". The detainees found themselves in a "legal black hole" due to the uncertainty created around their legal status. Yet war is regulated by international humanitarian law through the rules of jus ad bellum, which determine the situations in which it is lawful to resort to force, and jus in bello regulating the conduct of a war. This corpus of law is today largely codified by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977. But the "war on terror" is undoubtedly a new form of "war" which was not envisaged The adoption of the Geneva Conventions. A careful reading of these conventions may suggest that these provisions do not apply to terrorists who engage in activities that are totally contradictory to Geneva law. Thus, the applicability and application of this right in this "war" seem controversial, particularly with regard to the status of those arrested and then detained by the United States. However, the constant of international humanitarian law is that it should be applicable as soon as a situation of violence turns into an armed conflict.