Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorSutton, David
dc.contributor.advisorKim, Seihillen_US
dc.contributor.advisorAgne, Roberten_US
dc.contributor.authorCann, Nicoleen_US
dc.date.accessioned2008-09-09T21:16:49Z
dc.date.available2008-09-09T21:16:49Z
dc.date.issued2006-08-15en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10415/348
dc.description.abstractThe controversy over the World Trade Center site was examined. Using Foss’ comprehensive examination of the narrative and Fisher’s narrative paradigm fifty-six articles from The New York Times were examined for the narrative fidelity and narrative probability of the two main narratives, the right to mourn and the right to renew. The analysis found that the two main narratives were in confliction. Consequently, the right to renew narrative proved more dominant than the right to mourn narrative. Overall, the analysis found that the constant confliction of the two narratives was a significant factor in the delaying of the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectCommunication and Journalismen_US
dc.titleThe World Trade Center Site: Who Won? Fisher's Narrative Paradigm and Conflicting Narratives in the Analysis of the World Trade Center Site Controversyen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.embargo.lengthNO_RESTRICTIONen_US
dc.embargo.statusNOT_EMBARGOEDen_US


Files in this item

Show simple item record