I want to point out something, and it is important. From this article:
Aristotle established his idea of credibility sans reputation so that those without a known reputation might have an equal chance to defend themselves in the court system. However, it seems overly facile to assume that reputation was not instrumental in persuading an audience. Indeed, in the classical agora, reputation—what was commonly known about a person's prior actions and family history—was a form of initial ethos.2 Audience members could verify these assertions if the community were small enough. On the other hand, the online audience is dramatically larger. And since the Web environment was created without traditional gatekeeping controls such as editorial boards, there is little way of verifying the words of another, especially if there is no feedback mechanism such as an email link or a telephone number. Moreover, it is difficult to assess the recency of information since there is often no way to verify how long the information has been online. Even if there is a last-updated date on the site, verfying the date's accuracy is difficult. It seems reasonable, then, that establishing trust between an online group and its users may be more difficult than it might be offline, in a face-to-face situation. Despite these obstacles, religions that wish to go online must shape their identity by appealing to what might be called a traditional view of religious character while simultaneously filtering those traditional appeals through the new environment and it technologies.
Eighteenth century epistemologist and minister George Campbell spoke to what might be called traditional religious ethos. Campbell argued that the preacher-orator had the hardest job convincing an audience, since the audience received its moral guidance from the orator. The orator must exist without flaw. To facilitate this image, the orator had to "excite some desire or passion in the hearers" and then "satisfy their judgment that there is a connexion between the action to which he would persuade them, and the gratification of the desire or passion which he excites." Religious ethos is one of authority and must be established by embracing moderation, candor, and benevolence. "The preacher," Campbell noted, "is the minister of grace, the herald of divine mercy to ignorant, sinful, and erring men [and women] and also the man [or woman] of justice and wrath." The preacher-orator, therefore, must exemplify the pinnacle of morality and show concern for the community in order to persuade its audience.
Any religious group may construct such a communal ethos through actualization, projection, and association. First, it can actualize ethos demonstratively or, in other words, perform it for the audience. It is an ethos of linguistic action. When speakers point to the charitable deeds that they have done in the past, it is an attempt to alter the perception of their reputations by actualizing ethos. The strategy is typical of much discourse, not just religious communication, but also in forensic and deliberative rhetoric. Lawyers, for example, construct witnesses' and defendants' credibility by their listing accomplishments and deeds, or, simply stated, prior action. If the speaker is unable to talk about the positive deeds that he or she has accomplished, his or her ethos is weakened. Similarly, religious leaders must demonstrate to the audience moral virtue and a concern for the community by talking about past actions that have helped the welfare of the larger community.
Projection is a second vehicle through which ethos may be created. If one looks at the speaker's discursive choices, the clothes that the individual wears, the speaker's mannerisms, for instance, one has a certain view of that person's character. These attributes constitute part of the performance and are stylistic choices that affect the speaker's appearance of authority, virtue, and so on. Projected ethos is not created through words about prior action, but is fashioned through immediate verbal and nonverbal cues. Black gives us a hint:
Several scholars help us understand how an associative ethos might work. Hart et al. contend that one method for improving one's perception of competency, an element of ethos, is to associate oneself with other high-credibility sources. Osborn and Osborn suggest that in basic public speaking, citing or using experts to strengthen one's speech or position "allows you to borrow ethos from those who have earned it through their distinguished and widely recognized work" (155). Logue and Miller state that "rhetorical statuses arise when communicators position themselves to each other, as each takes account of salient qualities of self and other" (20). These authors further argue that "each person at any time has many rhetorical statuses, depending upon the extent of that person's communicative relationships" (21). The types of connections made to other people or other communities can substantially affect the degree of perceived credibility."
Namely this: "To this extent, Aristotle asserted that "this should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person" (Kennedy 38). "
What this means is actually why Hubbard did lots of recorded lectures, those were his speeches, his ethos. He used them for two reason's, 1. to get ethos, and 2. to make money from every member as every member has to buy his speeches. They are called lecture series. This is also why Hubbard wanted to protect "the image of LRH" at all costs, this gets into OSA, or Office of Special Affairs.
"Religious-based Ethos
A long history of debate over ethos is evident in the rhetorical tradition. The term has been characterized by a tension among what qualities we ought praise and condemn. Aristotle included practical intelligence, moral virtue, and goodwill, in his conception of ethos. The Romans later added concepts such as modesty, temperance, honor, and courage. In the centuries following, the construct has grown exponentially more complex, including more modern concepts such as dynamism and charisma. Ethos is, at its core, a perception—an illusion wrought by a rhetor in selecting appropriate and sometimes inappropriate words, artifacts, and actions, in order to gain the trust of the other. To this extent, Aristotle asserted that "this should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person" (Kennedy 38).Aristotle established his idea of credibility sans reputation so that those without a known reputation might have an equal chance to defend themselves in the court system. However, it seems overly facile to assume that reputation was not instrumental in persuading an audience. Indeed, in the classical agora, reputation—what was commonly known about a person's prior actions and family history—was a form of initial ethos.2 Audience members could verify these assertions if the community were small enough. On the other hand, the online audience is dramatically larger. And since the Web environment was created without traditional gatekeeping controls such as editorial boards, there is little way of verifying the words of another, especially if there is no feedback mechanism such as an email link or a telephone number. Moreover, it is difficult to assess the recency of information since there is often no way to verify how long the information has been online. Even if there is a last-updated date on the site, verfying the date's accuracy is difficult. It seems reasonable, then, that establishing trust between an online group and its users may be more difficult than it might be offline, in a face-to-face situation. Despite these obstacles, religions that wish to go online must shape their identity by appealing to what might be called a traditional view of religious character while simultaneously filtering those traditional appeals through the new environment and it technologies.
Eighteenth century epistemologist and minister George Campbell spoke to what might be called traditional religious ethos. Campbell argued that the preacher-orator had the hardest job convincing an audience, since the audience received its moral guidance from the orator. The orator must exist without flaw. To facilitate this image, the orator had to "excite some desire or passion in the hearers" and then "satisfy their judgment that there is a connexion between the action to which he would persuade them, and the gratification of the desire or passion which he excites." Religious ethos is one of authority and must be established by embracing moderation, candor, and benevolence. "The preacher," Campbell noted, "is the minister of grace, the herald of divine mercy to ignorant, sinful, and erring men [and women] and also the man [or woman] of justice and wrath." The preacher-orator, therefore, must exemplify the pinnacle of morality and show concern for the community in order to persuade its audience.
Any religious group may construct such a communal ethos through actualization, projection, and association. First, it can actualize ethos demonstratively or, in other words, perform it for the audience. It is an ethos of linguistic action. When speakers point to the charitable deeds that they have done in the past, it is an attempt to alter the perception of their reputations by actualizing ethos. The strategy is typical of much discourse, not just religious communication, but also in forensic and deliberative rhetoric. Lawyers, for example, construct witnesses' and defendants' credibility by their listing accomplishments and deeds, or, simply stated, prior action. If the speaker is unable to talk about the positive deeds that he or she has accomplished, his or her ethos is weakened. Similarly, religious leaders must demonstrate to the audience moral virtue and a concern for the community by talking about past actions that have helped the welfare of the larger community.
Projection is a second vehicle through which ethos may be created. If one looks at the speaker's discursive choices, the clothes that the individual wears, the speaker's mannerisms, for instance, one has a certain view of that person's character. These attributes constitute part of the performance and are stylistic choices that affect the speaker's appearance of authority, virtue, and so on. Projected ethos is not created through words about prior action, but is fashioned through immediate verbal and nonverbal cues. Black gives us a hint:
Rhetors who attempt to establish credibility by showcasing the persons with whom they transact and relate are projecting a third type of ethos—one created through association. This formation of ethos is key for online groups. If they are be able to demonstrate that they retain a "community" of followers who believe or trust in their religious belief system, it seems reasonable that they may be more successful in attracting outsiders. Depending upon to whom and how successful the connection is made, a religious group may be perceived credible beyond that which may have been possible by listing past deeds or its historical record. Moreover, on the Web, links from an organization's website to another can figuratively and literally link one group's ethos to a community of others, which may help facilitate building this form of credibility.When, for example, the judge is robed, the garment neutralizes the individual appearance; it depersonalizes the wearer. The person is concealed. Similarly, the white sheet of the Klansman obscures an angry redneck, and proposes instead an embodiment of social interests and moral emotions. It is, indeed, not the person but the role that is elevated and the subordination of the person to the costume assists this process. (136)
Several scholars help us understand how an associative ethos might work. Hart et al. contend that one method for improving one's perception of competency, an element of ethos, is to associate oneself with other high-credibility sources. Osborn and Osborn suggest that in basic public speaking, citing or using experts to strengthen one's speech or position "allows you to borrow ethos from those who have earned it through their distinguished and widely recognized work" (155). Logue and Miller state that "rhetorical statuses arise when communicators position themselves to each other, as each takes account of salient qualities of self and other" (20). These authors further argue that "each person at any time has many rhetorical statuses, depending upon the extent of that person's communicative relationships" (21). The types of connections made to other people or other communities can substantially affect the degree of perceived credibility."
Namely this: "To this extent, Aristotle asserted that "this should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person" (Kennedy 38). "
What this means is actually why Hubbard did lots of recorded lectures, those were his speeches, his ethos. He used them for two reason's, 1. to get ethos, and 2. to make money from every member as every member has to buy his speeches. They are called lecture series. This is also why Hubbard wanted to protect "the image of LRH" at all costs, this gets into OSA, or Office of Special Affairs.