Diana In The Dock: Does Privacy Matter?
Conflicting perspectives generate diverse and provocative insights”
While conflicting perspectives generate countless insights and agendas, the composer’s selection and emphasis skews the audiences’ opinions of a personality, situation or event. Thus a perspective is coloured with subjectivity, revealing the complexity of issues as controversy may arise. This is displayed in Geoffrey Robertson’s cases “Diana in the Dock: Does Privacy matter?” And “The Prisoner of Venda” and Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.
Robertson's "Diana in the Dock: Does Privacy matter?" examines conflicting perspectives in relation to justice, about the law, privacy and the media. However, in presenting so his arguments are profoundly one sided as he skews his argument with language techniques to convince responders to perceive a particular end of the standpoint. In his opening chapter he utilises a central paradox in her relationship with the media - the desire to be sheltered "from the very world of tabloid editors and paparazzi which had become an essential …show more content…
feature of her life and, in due course, of her death". He indicates this paradox as her desire to be protected from what was "essential" to her and by adding "in due course" he suggests the inevitability of the media's role in her death.
Consider this taken from the afterward, "the best often go unrecognised because their genius is to keep their clients out of court rather than in it, or to produce solutions so acceptable that the problem is never heard of again." Robertson played his game by having settled the case out of court and as he believed, "the best side" had a "better chance of winning" with precise and fair rules obeyed.
Satirically and ironically he lamentably expresses the missed opportunity to cross-examine Diana to expose further invasion of privacy. Attempting to set the scales he contrastingly concludes by expressing the hope was an enactment of privacy law. Through these conflicting perspectives, we are acquainted with different aspects of the case, coming to the deduction that Robertson is attempting to use Justice as a medium to provide us with our own interpretation to the end result to the case despite outweighing one argument against the
other.
Corresponding in a similar use of humour and wit Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 represents conflicting perspectives in the form of a documentary to achieve its purpose in conveying its meaning through visual techniques. Furthermore, creating a sensationalised representation it engages a wider audience in presenting its truth behind 9/11 and America's former president George Bush. Michael Moore has presented this film, dressed in everyday outfits to appeal to common viewers exemplifying his representation of George Bush by delivering conflicting perspectives to support his case. He declares that he is presenting the truthful outlook. He achieves this through omission by effectively distorting the perceptions of responders into believing what he deems as truth. Attempting to deliver an objective portrayal archival footage and factual historical events are central elements within the documentary to support Moore's responses and attitude. However in doing so, it clearly shows signs of hatred and disapproval towards President George Bush as it selects particular sources to deliver that across.
While conflicting perspectives generate countless insights and agendas, the composer’s selection and emphasis skews the audiences’ opinions of a personality, situation or event. Thus a perspective is coloured with subjectivity, revealing the complexity of issues as controversy may arise. This is displayed in Geoffrey Robertson’s cases “Diana in the Dock: Does Privacy matter?” And “The Prisoner of Venda” and Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.
Robertson's "Diana in the Dock: Does Privacy matter?" examines conflicting perspectives in relation to justice, about the law, privacy and the media. However, in presenting so his arguments are profoundly one sided as he skews his argument with language techniques to convince responders to perceive a particular end of the standpoint. In his opening chapter he utilises a central paradox in her relationship with the media - the desire to be sheltered "from the very world of tabloid editors and paparazzi which had become an essential …show more content…
feature of her life and, in due course, of her death". He indicates this paradox as her desire to be protected from what was "essential" to her and by adding "in due course" he suggests the inevitability of the media's role in her death.
Consider this taken from the afterward, "the best often go unrecognised because their genius is to keep their clients out of court rather than in it, or to produce solutions so acceptable that the problem is never heard of again." Robertson played his game by having settled the case out of court and as he believed, "the best side" had a "better chance of winning" with precise and fair rules obeyed.
Satirically and ironically he lamentably expresses the missed opportunity to cross-examine Diana to expose further invasion of privacy. Attempting to set the scales he contrastingly concludes by expressing the hope was an enactment of privacy law. Through these conflicting perspectives, we are acquainted with different aspects of the case, coming to the deduction that Robertson is attempting to use Justice as a medium to provide us with our own interpretation to the end result to the case despite outweighing one argument against the
other.
Corresponding in a similar use of humour and wit Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 represents conflicting perspectives in the form of a documentary to achieve its purpose in conveying its meaning through visual techniques. Furthermore, creating a sensationalised representation it engages a wider audience in presenting its truth behind 9/11 and America's former president George Bush. Michael Moore has presented this film, dressed in everyday outfits to appeal to common viewers exemplifying his representation of George Bush by delivering conflicting perspectives to support his case. He declares that he is presenting the truthful outlook. He achieves this through omission by effectively distorting the perceptions of responders into believing what he deems as truth. Attempting to deliver an objective portrayal archival footage and factual historical events are central elements within the documentary to support Moore's responses and attitude. However in doing so, it clearly shows signs of hatred and disapproval towards President George Bush as it selects particular sources to deliver that across.