>>You can present any POV you like in a work of fiction.

Sadly even the so-called "news" is increasingly based loosely on the facts. It's the ratings that get measured or the feel-good value for the audience, not the clarity of the editorials or accuracy of the reporting.

Example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/27/why-new-zealand-is-officially-earnestly-upset-about-argo/

According to the Washington Post, "the prime minister of New Zealand, John Key, has called on the producers of “Argo,” the now Oscar-winning film about Americans who holed up in the Canadian ambassador’s house during the Iran hostage crisis, to formally apologize for the movie’s portrayal of New Zealand."

(The movie says NZ turned the Americans away, something that has been refuted by the American diplomats involved who pointed out that it was a NZ diplomat who drove them to the airport so they could escape, not the CIA hero with the movie's exciting chase scene)

Here's what Key actually said:

“New Zealand, I think, sees itself as a country that always wants to lend a hand to help people, but in the end, this is Hollywood, and they do make movies. And a bit like when they transfer a book to a movie, often it’s a little bit different. So, look, I think we’ve made our point and we should probably move on."

The Post then follows up with this, http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/passing-mention-in-argo-rankles-new-zealand-which-notes-its-diplomats-did-help-americans/2013/03/21/74bed566-91f2-11e2-9173-7f87cda73b49_story.html

that includes a quote from some Sociology unknown who achieves his moment of fame by explaining the NZ reaction on the basis of insecurity. Meanwhile in the real world, nobody really cares in NZ except a few grandstanding opposition politicians, media screamers and bloggers, but it's blown up into a news story that is as full of inaccuracies as the movie. Both choose to exaggerate/stretch the truth to satisfy the audience.