Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Delaware, 2006. / Principal faculty advisor: Joel Best, Dept. of Sociology. Includes bibliographical references.

Project (D. Min.)--Iliff School of Theology, 2006. / Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 121-123; 126-146).

I was interested in researching the underlying factors that drove resiliency in regional U.S. hotel markets. I did this by conducting an empirical analysis of twenty nine different markets post September 11 and investigating general, leisure and business variables. I concluded that leisure variables were the underlying drivers of resiliency in regional U.S. hotel markets. I then conducted an event study to try to apply my findings to stock market prices of publicly traded hotel companies. Although it was a challenge to differentiate between companies that depended more on leisure versus business customers due to their asset diversification, I categorized each company into one of the two subsets. If my findings held, I would assume that that the cumulative abnormal returns for the companies that relied on business customers would be more negative than the companies who relied on leisure customers. However, this was not the case, so the findings that leisure variables drive market resiliency were not a good predictor of stock market reaction.

Project (D. Min.)--Iliff School of Theology, 2006. / Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 121-123; 126-146).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 2003.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Kent State University, 2009. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed Nov. 24, 2009). Advisor: Steven W. Hook. Keywords: proactive foreign policy, the multiple streams model, preexisting solutions. Includes bibliographical references (p. 218-238).

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2003. / Thesis advisor(s): Maria J. Rasmussen, James A. Russell. Includes bibliographical references (p. 61-62). Also available online.

This study examined how mainstream and black press newspapers framed the phenomena of "racial profiling" three years before and three years after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It looked particularly at frames, ethnic groups, source selection and article emphasis. Results indicate that even in the face of a tragedy, black press reporters did not waiver in their position and continued to cover issues from a "black perspective." On the other hand, mainstream newspapers altered their coverage during the high-stress period and began to portray racial profiling as an anti-Arab/terrorist tactic that is acceptable in some cases. This study helps answer the question of whether black press newspapers are necessary in today's society. The answer is yes. They still carry a unique viewpoint. Until the gap that divides African American and other readers ceases to exist, the black press will remain an important staple in the black community. / text

Not available / text

While the cannon of objectivity has recently been called into question as the means for evaluating news merit, objectivity continues to harbor public expectation of the news media, especially during times of conflict. Results of past and current objectivity studies of conflict reporting, however, were shown to produce inconsistent and conflicting interpretations of whether the news media is presenting objective coverage of conflicts.To determine objectivity of news coverage, this content analysis examined objectivity differences between three newspapers--the Chicago Tribune, the Indianapolis Star, and the Anderson Herald Bulletin--and how they collectively presented front-page conflict and mainstream straight news stories.The study evaluated the newspapers' collective presentation of the September 11 h terrorist attack for a two-week period from September 12 through September 26, 2001. Presentation of the conflict was compared to a proportionate sample of mainstream straight news stories randomly selected from the months of January through December of 2001.Because the literature review indicated researchers most commonly evaluate news objectivity according to the presence of balance, attribution, or gatekeeping bias, the study assessed differences in objectivity level between conflict and straight news based upon the integration of all three objectivity variables The study's findings suggested that reporting of mainstream straight news was more objective than reporting of the September 11 terrorist attack conflict in the combined three newspapers. Reporting of the terrorist attack was found to be less balanced than reporting of straight news stories, as evidenced by a disproportionate amount of quotations afforded in support of United States war efforts. In addition, conflict stories were found to contain a significantly higher use of negative attributes-non-essential adjectives, inferences, collateral language and non-speech quotes--than straight news stories. Differences between page placement and revelation of theme were found to have no effect on objectivity differences. / Department of Journalism