When considering what type problems my campaign team might encounter when distributing our work, I thought of times where I have consumed information from different fact sheets and websites as well as what I have done with that information. Fact sheets are unique because in general they designed to provide a high level overview of a topic to grasp a reader’s attention and maybe be passed around by a few people before ultimately getting tossed aside. Therefore, the question that Ridolfo and Devoss which stated “What segments of these texts may be useful, and to whom, and for what sorts of media production?” is most relevant for this issue. And in response to that question, I would say that it is vital to ensure that sources be listed for the facts so that if they were to be used in another piece by a third party, they could be validated.
Given how different forms of information are available in an instant today, as a writer it is important to at least consider how the information you produce could be used by others. In my opinion, this should be considered only if you have time and only if it will not interfere with your original goal. It comes down to prioritizing. Additionally, I think the concept of rhetorical velocity should really only be heavily considered in the revision process. This is the best place to tweak what you already have, which is trying to accomplish your primary goal. Since I am on the topic of revisions and I have recently received feedback on my first campaign piece and I am considering the changes I would make if I choose this piece as my revision piece. One thing I would change beyond what Dan has suggested is including website URLs so that the readers could easily go straight to where I got the information. Although I plan on including these on my website (which will be my second campaign piece), I feel that by doing this it adds some assurance to the quality of information. As a reader, I am hesitant to believe in the facts presented unless it comes directly from a highly trusted organization (their own research/fact gathering) or they state their source(s) explicitly and in an easily accessible place. Since I am not a major news network or scientific, I think it is imperative to state where I got my information. Furthermore, it may even be best to encourage readers of my work to visit the sources for themselves.
This passage helped me think though this concept of rhetorical velocity mainly because it is a topic I am relatively unfamiliar with so I think I gained a much better understanding simply by reading it and thinking through how these concepts applied to writing I am currently working on for this class. Also, I thought the example of how the Department of Defense referenced their own online article a mere three days later showed a concrete example of how quickly information can be referenced (especially for government entities).
Feels like you are interested in ethos mostly in relation to rhetorical velocity–what is the character of the person/organization? Can they be trusted? Something like URLs or citations can be easily lost when something is recomposed–are there ways you, as a writer, could prevent this from happening?
It’s a question to think of from several angles: are you thinking about rhetorical velocity in terms of speech (e.g., read something and am sharing what I remember from it in conversation)? In terms of digital manipulation (e.g., have file in format that I can edit it)? In terms of social media sharing?
In each case, do matters of ethos need differing sorts of attention? What do you think?