I think the public imagination hasn't arrived at this juncture yet. Priority=removal of hazardous waste. Some academics are imagining futures (the landscape architecture students and professors at Washington University for example). Discursive histories in use= culture of nature. Wildlife preserves on land unfit for habitation.
The audience the film best addresses is the public who knew about the nuclear event, but were not informed to the extent of what had happened or its ramifications on the future.
This film is aimed at a more general audience as most of the science has been "dumbed down". It offers a more emotional portrayel as opposed to a scientific.
I feel that this film would be best suited for a general public, non-scholarly, audiance. While it provides great, compelling, emotional stories of first hand accounts of ebola, it does not look at the disaster from an objective, scholarly, perspective.
The film addresses the general public, as it does not include significant amounts of scientific information that would require prior knowledge. The nature of the film however does aim toward a mature audience, as the film advises viewer discretion due to graphic images.
This film is directed towards the general public because of its emotional appeal. It does not have much dry, scientific data, which allows for a more general audience (as opposed to only those who are scientific). It is also targeted to an older population due to the graphic footage of the police shooting the children.
I would say the average community member is the main intended audience of this documentary, due to the fact that those in the general public can see themselves as being in the same situation. Most of those in the public aren't medically educated and the responses seen in Libera is the same that many of those would have in other general populations of other countries and locations. Due to the lack of scientific research and statistical analysis in the documentary, I would say that this documentary was meant to appeal to the general average person and not scientists, scholars or experts on the topic of disease containment.
This film, I feel, best addresses those trying to understand the broader social impacts of a disease which can include government officials and policy makers, first responders, emergency personal and more.
I think it can both bring the public to better understand first response and disaster response better as well as serve as a great film for other first responders to better understand what happened and how that day was handled.
The film is geared towards the general public, all medical terms are explained fairly well. No medical or first response background is necessary, and it is fairly educational for viewers.