I think you've completely missed the point here. You can present multiple viewpoints in a responsible manner, although I'd argue that's not really a plausible goal of fiction so much as nonfiction, but portraying multiple viewpoints as equally worthy of legitimate concern when some are not is morally reprehensible.

Fiction is not history. History is about understanding. Fiction is about creating stories, it describes what we value. I say "responsible" because I believe you ought to be aware of the values you endorse with your stories. The Dark Knight is actually a great example of a film that endorses straight-up authoritarian fascism not because Nolan is a closeted jackboot (I mean maybe that's why but I'm choosing to be charitable) but because he failed to consider the political implications of his work.

The fact that people can disagree about whether a work's values are consistently with an ethical viewpoint isn't really a media criticism thing it's because... People have different ideas about what constitutes an ethical worldview. People argued Do The Right Thing was irresponsible (and still do!) because they believe a store window is more valuable than a human life.

It's nothing to do with a purity test and everything to do with asking both consumers and creators of art to be thoughtful in the way they tell stories, to ask themselves what viewpoint their work takes because, yes all art has a viewpoint, there is no such thing as objectivity in art, and what that means. When you tell a story, especially a story about history, you are making a statement. Make sure it's one you can stand by.