As the article mentioned numerous times, the digital age requires writers to be mindful of recomposition. This era allows for anyone to repurpose and comment on any piece of work at increasing speed. Because of this changing field of rhetoric, rhetoricians are thinking one step ahead. The article itself was composed in a press release format; a format historically used with the understanding that the piece would be recomposed.
So how do writers approach a piece of work with recomposition in mind. One simple component is simply creating a share via link, which would allow people to comment on the work and introduce others to the piece as well. Facebook is the biggest platform for this method of recomposition. Without a character limit, people are able to express as much, or as little as they want. I would argue that Twitter on the other hand, while more difficult of a medium, allows for more effective recompostion. The character limit requires the strategic selection of quotes and thoughts to achieve the same goal as a Facebook post. Another growing platform that consistently repurposes rhetorical writing is a podcast. Podcasts typically have a spin or approach to the news or story they are telling. Most aim to have their listeners think about an issue from a unique perspective. From the podcasts I have listened to this is done strategically, through various methods. They often pull from news articles or written account of the event to define the facts. There is then usually an expert or someone with experience in the issue to comment. Lastly, numerous podcasts use their listeners to extend the conversation. Sometimes this is done through an email that coincides with the theme for the week, or a recorded phone call that brings a different perspective to an issue from a previous podcast.
Because digital mediums, like social media and podcasts, are incubators for commenting, authors need to think about how their own words may be used in the conversation. Delivery is one of the ways that authors can think ahead of the third-party commenters. While content taken out of context is always a concern, there are some methods of delivery where this is more of a concern. Video clips and pictures for example are very easily editable. Anyone can put text over an image and completely change the narrative. Videos can be clipped and placed within another video.
Among our campaign pieces, our infographic is the most accessible in terms of share-ability. It can be used within another article or letter as long as the topic centers around healthcare. The infographic can be delivered on its own, or in combination with a different form of recompostion. A piece that is difficult to recompose is the sensitivity training. This utilizes not only visuals but also a script and a handout, which makes it difficult for a podcast platform to comment on as a whole piece. Going forward though, I think rhetorical velocity is helpful in creating our pieces. We know that we cannot address every single issue as it relates to LGBTQ healthcare, so we are leaving some aspects open for others to repurpose and address.
I think it’s interesting that your line of thought automatically went to the potential positives of diverse re-purposing whereas my mind went to defending against people misrepresenting your words. ]\
Positive re-purposing allows your work to reach a greater audience with potentially greater effectiveness and this was not a possibility I had considered. Interestingly, before even reading this article I had incorporated a sort of rhetorical velocity into my sensitivity training project where throughout the script handout, there are places where suggestions are made for directors to personalize the presentation to their own staff or facility. These include options such as updating the mission statement to fit your own facility and modifying the presentation to fit each potential audience (eg subsets of the staff). I’m also working on creating a policy section which will have the potential to advice certain policies as well as enable facilities to incorporate education of their own changed policies. I, however, do agree that the visual infographic is tremendously reusable and could be modified or incorporated into a number of other pieces.
When reading this article my skeptical mind interestingly went right to people misrepresenting your words. It made me consider instances where a portion of a piece of writing is taken out of context and misconstrued to convey a different message. In this instance, you are able to realize that its incredibly important to view your alphanumeric writing on a sentence level and analyze whether each sentence, graphic, image etc could be manipulated to misrepresent your message yet be traced to you.
I really enjoyed reading your blog post. It offered several thought provoking points that specifically stood out to me. I especially liked the last sentence of your first line that analyzed the method of writing that the article used– the fact that it was originally a press release does exemplify how it develops overtime and its uses.
A strong point you made through your comparison of Facebook and Twitter. The fact that Facebook is much less popular now shows that other methods of communication may be more useful. While Facebook has no limits on words or pictures, twitter has a limit on tweets, and even Instagram has a limit on shared pictures. One question I have though, is, do you think the Twitter word limit is too constrictive? If we look at Trump’s tweets, we’ll see that he often has multiple tweets about the same subject that he forms a reply from each tweet with because he doesn’t have enough space to get the entire idea out. Trump is the best example of this, but even Obama had the same issues. If Twitter is the most widely used site for authors to get ideas out, should the word limit be slightly more extensive?
Another thought I had when reading your blog post was on pictures and videos being able to be easily edited and misconstrued. Isn’t this also a possibility with any form of writing? Anyone can take words out of a speech or post to mean something entirely different. Or, in a podcast, since a visual is not provided, parts of a discussion can be taken out of context as well.
Overall, I agree very much with your point that visual info graph can be reused easily, and it is smart to begin with. Furthermore, delivery is the most crucial aspect to keep in mind with these kinds of modes of communication with the public.
Living in a society that is dominated by technology and social media, I sometimes feel like originality Is lacking. But is that necessarily a bad thing?
You brought up a good point that it is crucial for writers to keep in mind that their work may often be changed, edited, and commented on. This is something I need to keep in mind when working on my campaign pieces.
I liked your comparison of Facebook to Twitter. Personally, as a college student, I use twitter more to communicate with friends and keep up with pop culture while I use Facebook to keep in touch with family members and to network professionally. I know people use both of these platforms for different reasons. Do you use them the same way that I do? If you do, do you think this specific use has anything to do with the point you brought up that twitter allows for more effective recomposition?
Your discussion of Podcasts also brought up some interesting points. Personally, I do not think I have ever listened to a podcast in my entire life (which is sad, I know), but I do often listen to talk radio. In your blog post you said that podcasts, “typically have a spin or approach to the news story they are telling” and I think this can also be said for public radio. Like podcasts, information is often pulled from different sources and then combined to form the radio broadcast. The broadcasts also often combine news, commentary and interviews.
On another note, I really loved the first sentence of your third paragraph. Comparing digital medium to “incubators for commenting” honestly made me chuckle a little.
Along the lines of the discussion of your infographic, one of the campaign pieces my group produced was a painting. Like you said, we were thinking it was something that could certainly be combined with other works but could also be used alone. For example, we were thinking of incorporating a photo of the painting into a flyer, poster, or brochure. I think it is important to keep in mind, who your intended audience is and what the most effective ways to reach them are.
Great discussion of social media and contemporary concerns. I think things like Photoshop and the ubiquity of accessible software that helps edit images and video speaks to your concerns, but I, after all, “you took this out of context!” claims have historically and still are attached to older media. Nevertheless, that is the negative side here, let’s think positively about rhetorical velocity, too. Onward!
At the end you write: “We know that we cannot address every single issue as it relates to LGBTQ healthcare, so we are leaving some aspects open for others to repurpose and address.” Any thoughts on how you might do this strategically? Are there certain moves you can make in writing things in the Prezi, infographic, or letter? Any way you might design images or use certain file formats? How might you write and design to encourage people to use your content in ways that further your cause and/or adjacent causes?
You make some really awesome points about re-purposing. I had never considered that writers today must plan in advance for re-purposing of their work moreso than writers of the past, but it’s definitely true! It makes me think about how writers must be extremely careful with their words because any sentence can be turned from a complete thought into an excerpt, which can sometimes actually have the opposite sentiment.
That definitely would be negative re-purposing, but you’re right that positive re-purposing can be almost invaluable. I definitely think creating something share-able is a good idea, so long as you are careful to frame it for positive re-purposing, not negative.
Additionally, I want to compliment you on your title of this blog post, because it definitely drew me in. A lot of the titles of people’s blog posts for the same week usually are pretty similar, but yours was different, eye catching, and you did a good job of relating it to the topic, also.