
For any form of media (especially something that is online) there will be multiple audiences from a variety of backgrounds. My primary audience will be my teacher and my classmates since they will have easy access to my blog post and know that it’s there. There is no doubt that my teacher will read it and there is a high probability that at least one of my peers will stumble on my post out of curiosity. Secondary audiences include anyone who has access to the internet and happens to find my post, history buffs that are looking for information on the United States during World War II, and railroad enthusiasts such as former workers who want to acquire a photograph of a prominent locomotive during the early 1940s. When writing my rhetorical analysis I need to make sure that my writing appeals to both audiences and can be understood clearly and concisely.
With multiple audiences, I need to write in a straitlaced manner and have evidence to back up any major claims. Increasing the amount of viable primary sources I have will in turn increase the validity of my argument. I know full well that my argument will not be considered the “correct” argument by every member of my audience. My aim is only to submit a possible argument backed up with enough evidence to convince the audience that this could be an alternative argument made by the author.
Context plays a great role in the way information is presented and received. Since my blog post will be on the internet and visible by anyone in a country with internet access, I need to limit any false stereotypes or generalizations. Broadening my scope will be essential to this writing project due to the fact that it will be posted on a global scale and therefore needs to reflect that same scale. I can also look at context through a temporal lens and compare how the argument has changed over time. Is the argument specific to that time period or does it still resonate today? It’s possible that the argument only applies to wars and therefore could be used with the Iraq war.
