What is the ethical justfication of exhuming KIA soldiers in the 21st Century within the EU and elsewhere in the world? Why is this important, who should be doing this and under what circumstances? How should the results be communicated to the media, the general public and/or the scientific community?
Who is talking ...
What is the role and credibility of the interviewed expert or experts? If only one expert or a single representative of a search group is interviewed about the repatriation of war dead it could narrow down the topic considerably.
Are interviews with more experts (sheding light on the topic from various different standpoints) a better a better solution and does this add to the credibilty of the subject among the viewers?
... and who is listening?
What is the correct way of reporting scientific and other repatriation work to a broader audience in order to get the message through (for instance in a national televised news broadcast). Should there be different types of reporting for different audiences and if so what are the differences?
Emotions, ideologies, politics and values
Parallels to other types of humanitarian work are often drawn when it comes to repatriation of war dead. Humanitarian repatriation work involves a lot of emotions as it confronts the participants with the horrors of war on a very personal level. Does this have an effect on how the repatriation work is carried out and how it is reported in different medias.
Does political opinions and different perceptions or ideologies play a role in the repatriation work and if so during which stages of the work itself and in the media coverage of the whole process?
Comments