Author: Daniel Libertz

In today’s world, it is common to believe that “everything has already been thought of” or “everything you need to say has already been said.” This is very true, in some respects. When writing a paper for a class, we draw upon respectable sources and use their arguments to support our position. Rarely is anything written that is a brand-new concept. We live in a society that is well connected and creative in the sense that we use the works of others to generate a “new” response. The meme known as the “Grumpy Cat” has been recomposed to creatively relay a message.

      

In this example, the person who uploaded the image for the first time probably did not anticipate the viral fame and twists put on this image that would follow. I really liked how Lawrence Lessig expressed the idea of remixing and how writing is a way to remix culture. He defines remix as “what we do when we mix together culture or knowledge, and then give others the opportunity to re-express that which we have mixed… culture is remix, knowledge is remix, politics is remix. Remix is how we as humans live and everyone within our society engages in this act of creativity.” This can be hard to do intentionally, and happens more often than not by accident. How can I make something with the idea of recomposition in mind? To me, I believe that the genre has a lot to do with this concern. A long-written document (white paper, lab report, essay, etc.) may be used as a reference for someone else’s work; however, it is unlikely that another person will try to re-purpose the piece. I think that graphics and music are the most common pieces that are likely to be recomposed. In addition, shorter pieces (blog, editorial, press release, etc.) provide an opportunity to be recomposed if they evoke a strong emotional response in the viewer. Something boring will not be recirculated.

My second campaign piece is a flyer that will hopefully draw viewers to my blog. In my opinion, it evokes a gloomy, eerie feeling from the viewer. I anticipate this response; however, someone with a different background or mindset could have a completely different perspective. For the revision of this piece, I will make a greater attempt to produce something that can be recomposed to fit the issues of “scientific uncertainty.” If I can accomplish this, I believe that my campaign will succeed.

Lastly, delivery and rhetorical velocity are crucial in determining whether or not a campaign catches fire or dies immediately. Luckily, we are born in an era where information can be distributed and re-purposed almost instantly with the click of a button. I like how Ridolfo and DeVoss define rhetorical velocity; specifically, how it “refers to the understanding and rapidity at which information is crafted, delivered, distributed, recomposed, redelivered, redistributed, etc., across physical and virtual networks and spaces.” Instead of producing my flyer as a physical printout, I can use the internet and social media to distribute it more quickly. It would be more beneficial for me to work with science and technology “giants” (popular Facebook groups and popular Twitter accounts) to help relay my message quickly and effectively. Posting from my personal accounts would be a waste time since I have ~500 total followers/friends. These accounts can help me reach millions of people, which is the key to keeping a campaign going. Since my target audience is parents, I could also tap into “parental help” groups/accounts as well. For example, there are Facebook groups such as “Kids Health” and “The Average Parent” where a community of parents help instruct one another and offer suggestions. My campaign is centered around recommendations on how to reduce a child’s exposure to electronic radiation. These resources are not ones that I had previously considered, but they may help improve the rhetorical velocity of my campaign.

First of all, I have to say this article introduces so many regarding the culture of

recomposition. Especially when talking about remix, I can really see how technology

changes can affect the style of remix. It’s more open with more possibilities even in

videos, audios, or other, instead of probably “single to single” in the old time.

Therefore, when we compose our work that prepared to be recomposed by others,

it has not to be limited to certain format or structure. Instead, it can be in various

formats and it will be delivered and recomposed by other different medias either,

just like the example of “Chocolate Rain” in the article. Also, as Greek Demosthenes

emphasized three times, the most important element of rhetoric is delivery. Thus,

how the work will be delivered hugely decide how it’s going to be recomposed.

For the purpose of the work to be recomposed by readers as much as possible, I

think one important key issue will be how it can be delivered. By using different

rhetorical deliveries, the result can be very different. We have to admit that as

technology becomes more and more advanced, the way to deliver can be more

electronically. However, a lot of times readers can actually gain more understandings

of the articles, for example, by rewriting them on the papers or reading paper

version instead of electronic version. Therefore, I think sometimes is not a bad idea

to try the old style of delivery as well. In addition, we have to consider the velocity,

which is greatly depending on the way to deliver. For example, the speed to spread

something out can be different by through videos, channels, blogs, etc.

Last but not least, an important idea of recomposing is that because the reader is

recomposing the article by his or her new understanding and then more people will

read, readers can be authors at the same time.

When I think of rhetorical velocity, I think of articles that get retweeted with the account adding a compelling sentence of text. Writing in anticipation of recomposition demands a familiarity with what compels individuals to engage with your writing in the first place. By identifying the causes of initial audience engagement, one can foresee subsequent activity beyond the primary. I have never approached my writing with strategic recomposition in mind. Not that I haven’t wanted my thoughts or views to be circulated while I enjoy proper attribution, but it just seems like an intellectually shallow purpose as an individual without a broader objective. Writing with strategic recomposition in mind means being rejecting that purity I just described and understanding that word of mouth is the most effective endorsement, and people need to be led to those endorsements if the campaign goal is going to be vigorously pursued. Having a consistent message throughout the writing that restates your thesis in different ways that can appeal to a more diverse audience might be effective. For example, using a metaphor might resonate more strongly with some people, while using statistics to explain the same argument might appeal to others. Providing options while remaining consistent in substance could really promote circulation and staying power.

“Davies’ explanation of statistics as, “…tools designed to simplify the job of government, for better or worse” was something that I had never thought about before. This simplification is implicit in data aggregation, but I never spent time thinking about the concept before. I think that just by including this idea as a disclaimer when using data is powerful in and of itself. I think a lot of the skepticism of statistics comes from who collects the data. For example, if someone is generally distrustful of the government, then they will question the data government collects. If it’s possible, providing data that is collected by organizations or institutions or sectors that the data can help to explain could lend objectivity. For example, I both of my campaign pieces I use statistics compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org, which I highly recommend for any interested parties). For most of the data on the site, the candidates and organizations are required by law to submit what they are receiving or donating. To me, that lends credibility. In this instance, there is no expertise because it’s essentially just regurgitation of information. By portraying data providers as messengers reduces their “elitist” qualities.

Rhetorical velocity focuses on when and how a piece is delivered to an audience.   It is initially defined as “a strategic approach to composing for rhetorical delivery”.  Later in the article, the author defines rhetorical velocity as “an understanding of how the speed at which information composed to be recomposed travels”.  I think that to compose a piece of writing for recomposition means that when you are creating your piece, you have to be ready for your work to be changed or edited to fit many different settings.  For example, an article you write could be put in a magazine, and they might add a picture you did not originally include.  This is not a major reconfiguration of your work, but the magazine is trying to enhance your article to best fit their platform.  On the other hand, something you say could be completely misinterpreted and you could be quoted as support for something that does not directly relate to your work.  This would completely change the meaning of your work, and could be used to support something that you are very opposed to.

To encourage people to reconfigure my work to contribute positively to my campaign, I think it would be best to make my pieces easily implemented on other platforms.  For example, my second campaign piece could be a flyer or something that is shared on social media.  When it is printed out as a flyer, it will be harder for it people to reconfigure it because they cannot edit my work directly.  If it is shared on social media, every time someone reposts it they can write their own comments about what they think, and every time something is added, the meaning will change slightly.  I think that in order for a piece to be successful online, it has to be composed in a way that is easily shared and everyone can recompose the message themselves.

Initially, strategically writing with intent for recomposition can be an intimidating task that seems almost impossible. For example, how am I supposed to know how somebody else will want to use my work? However, there are a few things that can be done in order to facilitate recomposition in a way the writer will approve.

First off, recomposition is only possible when somebody is so inspired by your work, that they would like to put their own spin on it. The writer needs to provoke his/her audience. If the work is too boring or too ineffective there is a zero percent change it will be recomposed.

Next, the piece must have the ability to be easily reused. The work must not be so complex, that it cannot be put into a different genre. For example, if you a writing a white paper, many things need to be thoroughly explained before the final conclusion is drawn. This type of work will be extremely difficult to transfer into a brochure where the space is extremely limited. If you are writing with the intent for somebody else to repurpose your work, it is a good idea to keep things simple. Your repurposed work will only be less complex than the original.

One important thing I took away from the reading states, “Remix is how we as humans live and everyone within our society engages in this act of creativity.” This is an interesting point that suggests that essentially everything we are doing has already been done; we are only remixing it. To some extent, this is true. All of our work, especially as students, that we are doing is based on research that other people have already conducted.

In order to apply this to our Writing for the Public pieces, I think it would be beneficial to have some main points that are short, sweet, and to the point. These points, if possible, should not need much explanation. It would be easiest for these points to be able to stand alone if the intent is for recomposition.

Rhetorical velocity, or the derivative of rhetorical displacement for us science folks, is a strategic approach of the means by which your audience will receive your approach. Many factors come into questions such as speed, time, and distance your idea has to go. It is important to note that writer and the people that put these pieces out there for you to see, such as the media or writers, all have taken these factors into consideration. We see this a lot in politics, such as with press releases or news articles. Press releases are often middle afternoon, when the media is in full swing and able to fully report on it with all resources. Even media outlets, as spoke about in a previous class, release the better stories early in the week to allow for maximum coverage time. All of these follow a simple idea, getting the story to the audience as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Now that the author has released the idea to the crowd, there are an array of things that can happen, whether expected or unexpected. Sometimes the idea amplifies and becomes larger. In the world today, amplification comes in to play often due to the social media aspect. Although it is not mentioned in the reading, think about how many people, inventions, and new stories have “blown up” due to social media. People have become famous solely off of Vine or Twitter. This would not have happened fifty years ago. Therefore, amplification is an important aspect to reaching the audience. Another thing that could happen is recomposition, or as we like to call it, remixing. Chances are, when people release something, there are no intentions of remixing it. They plan to release their work to the audience, remixes can come from admirers or adversaries. These remixes can be simple or even more complex, either way it is the method of taking old work and combining to form new work. The example of Wikipedia is interesting because of the allowance of “remixing” the articles. Remixing allows for others to also amplify the message.

How can this help with our campaigns? Well, for my campaign, amplification will play a larger role in allowing the water crisis to reach all the millennials. Internet presence and amplification go hand in hand; therefore, hoping that it will allow my idea to expand quickly. Focusing on creativity and audience interaction allows for the idea to expand with the rhetoric velocity desired. The more that the audience is allowed to have fun and play with the idea, the more of the chance that they will amplify or remix it.

Both text and video have become so readily remixable with the invention of YouTube and Photoshop. These have given way to a new thing called “memes.” This has dramatically influenced the campaign of many large companies and could even improve our campaigns. The options are limitless to how you can design our campaign to allow for maximum coverage.

In this article, Davies argues that statistics are neither an absolute truth, nor utter nonsense created by the government to sway public opinion, but rather something in the middle. I would agree with Davies in this regard. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to create a study that is 100% objective and therefore all statistics should be approached with at least a little bit of skepticism. It is very important that the data you are using is coming from as independent, unbiased source as possible, which can be difficult to find. However, I believe that unbiased statistics can be a very useful tool in making an argument or in a larger sense like a campaign. I believe the most effective way to use statistics in the context of a campaign would be to use them as additional information to back up the opinions and arguments within the campaign. For example, I argue in my campaign that in general, the public is relatively uneducated in the subject of autonomous cars and are therefore afraid of their arrival.  I found a study that I have referenced throughout the campaign that says that 60% of the people it sampled know “a little” or “nothing”, by their own admission, about autonomous cars. I think that this statistic is a strong addition to my argument and in adds some context to the point I am trying to make.

Unfortunately, people have begun to mistrust the validity of some sources of data, which makes rhetoricians jobs much more difficult. I think that you cannot completely denounce this line of thinking because some people are entrenched in this belief. But, the anti-statistics movement cannot influence you completely. As a public writer, you have to accept the fact that no matter how hard you try or how well you write, not everyone is going to agree with you. Once you realize this, you have to aim your focus at the people who are willing to listen to your ideas with an open mind. In order to convince these people that your views are the correct ones, it is best to be completely open with the reader and to used statistics from objective, independent sources.

Statistics are a valuable resource when trying to convey a message to an audience. However, Davis points out the risks that comes with using these tools. The major point behind his argument is that statistics have become a mistrusted source of information because of the impact that emotion plays in portraying these statistics. In today’s world, we see statistics all around us: some that are beneficial to our beliefs, some that may conflict. Either way, statistics play a large role in our everyday lives. So why then, do we struggle with believing all statistics that we see? This is exactly what Davis was investigating. As seen through his history review of statistics, they were essentially made for the elite. However, he urges the readers to considers statistics as tools instead of unquestionable truths or elite conspiracies. As you may have dealt with yourself, statistics play a significant role in most campaigns, especially in scientific and factual based campaigns. In the case for my campaign, statistics play a key role. For example, in my first campaign piece (website) I give this set of stats:

1. Water makes up about 71% of the Earth’s surface.
2. A shocking 96.5% of that water is salt water, coming from the oceans.
3. While 3.5% is freshwater, coming from lakes and frozen water in the polar ice caps.
4. Of the 3.5% freshwater, 69% takes the form of ice.
5. Therefore, 0.77% of the Earth’s water is drinkable liquid freshwater.

Sounds interesting, right? Well even those these statistics may seem “shocking” or “crazy”, how does one exactly define these and how credible can they possibly be? This is the dilemma that Davis focused on. Similar to his GDP example for people living in Welsh valleys, for the people like us who live in a “world” that water surrounds our every move and think nothing of it, why should we even take the statistics for half their worth. Of course, as opposed to someone in Uganda struggling to find water. Who do you would believe this statistic more? Who would this have more carry with, as an audience? Therefore, it is easy to see how statistics can be interpreted.

Considering that my audience is from the “world” I spoke of before, it may be possible that these statistics may be mistrusted. This is a common problem with statistics, especially in the world we live in today with all the “fake news” and media propaganda. How do I react if these statistics are not taken for their worth? Well personally, the way I would deal with it is allowing the audience to provide their possible statistics. If you do not think that .77% of the Earth’s water is drinkable, how much is? A little reverse psychology, maybe? This combatant method may force them into looking up their own statistics may be able to trick them into reading more about the subject. Who knows, they may be like, “Wow, this is really bad. I need to do something about this.” Either way, getting them to consider the matter can only be beneficial.

In summary, statistics play a large role in campaigning and many other aspects. That is why it is important to, not exactly take them at their face value, but to investigate them and form your own evidence whether or not to believe these statistics.

I believe that the use of statistics in modern society is always going to bring about resentment in some viewers. William Davies writes that “statistics were designed to give an understanding of a population in its entirety . . .” This is what statistics do today as well. Within a statistic, there is always an inherent attempt to pursue the audience into seeing an “undeniable truth.” It is my opinion that this is unavoidable. Period. Davies acknowledges that these numbers are used to represent populations, but not every aspect or person within the given population can be accounted for. Take the United States for example. There are more than 300 million people living in the US; therefore, statisticians have to make decisions regarding representation of the population. If a researcher wants to know how the population feels on an issue, they can create polls, surveys, or other means to acquire data; still, the population is unfairly represented. Davies reiterates this point by stating that “there is always an implicit choice in what is included and what is excluded, and this choice can become a political issue in its own right.” Being straightforward with the collection method and the representation (demographic, age, race, sex, gender) is the only way to ease tension with those who feel resentment from statistics. Although it may help government officials to “understand the population,” I do not think people agree with being reduced to a number.

This article did a great job at introducing the evolution of statistics and the way that they have been used throughout the centuries. Today, it is not economically or physically feasible to monitor each and every citizen within a given society. Yes, people within the same region may have similar views on some issues, but to lump everyone together is just plain ignorant. There are local variations and extraneous factors that influence the actions, behaviors and opinions of the people within a community. I understand why people use statistics though. They are ways to relay a “general truth” about a population, without taking individual lives into consideration. To say that unemployment has decreased from 20% to 16% does not capture the whole story. Those who are unemployed will likely resent the statistic or the politician delivering the statistic. The only way to deal with this issue is to empathize with those still struggling and acknowledging that “it is not enough.” Highlighting the positive aspect of a statistic does not reinforce a point, but rather alienates the other end of the spectrum. Statistics of this nature should never be used to say “we as a society are improving” or “life for Americans is getting better.” Statements like these would make me angry and distrusting. Stating that we, as a nation, are trending in the right direction while empathizing with old coal miners, steel workers, and other unemployed persons would be better. Resentment will always exist with statistics: that is the inevitable truth.