I think that the prompt asks you to explore how different perspectives affect historical narratives. Given that you have been asked to consider current issues: one could think of a few. For example, the Kurdish referendum and their push for independence, the Catalan one, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, global warming, issues about colonialism. Perhaps Cold War (orthodox, revisionists, post revisionists), maybe climate change, or the recent hurricanes, the invasion of Iraq, etc. These are all issues where different stake holders may view the situation very differently, given their perspective. Now, where does perspective come from? Does language affect it? What about emotion? Imagination? Which works may be relevant in shaping perspective?
Once you have established whether different stake holders have different points of view - you should conclude that it is remarkable that given access to the same facts (in the most part - this can be a nice counter point for example info is very controlled in the DPRK) experts can reach different conclusions.
So we are at a crossroads. The prompt then asks you to gauge to what extend are these narratives affected by perspective? I find that confusing because any attempt to gauge is also itself influenced by perspective... how do you choose to assess historical narratives is riddled with the same problems that face the situations you are trying to assess. As EH Carr used to say we need to remember that historians are also products of history. Let me know if this was helpful.