Telling the "Real" Story

There are many movies that focus on historical events, but not all of them tell the "actual" story. This brings up the question, what responsibilities do films or other popular media have in terms of representing "real" historical or political events? The first time I thought about this question was after I saw the movies Inglorious Bastards and Valkyrie around the same time. Both are movies set in World War Two, but Valkyrie is historically correct while Inglorious Bastards is not. Another important thing to note is both movies have a similar message: not all Germans in WWII were bad people. This is explicitly shown in Valkyrie where high ranking officers in the German Army plot to kill Hitler, while in Inglorious Bastards, Colonel Hans Landa "the Jew Hunter" is a man of his word whereas Lt. Aldo Raine (the "good" guy) is a backstabber who cannot be trusted.  Despite the factual shortcomings, I wouldn't say Inglorious Bastards does wrong to WWII history. Although it isn't factual like Valkyrie, the story in Inglorious Bastards seems plausible and could have very well been true. After all, with all of the assassination attempts on Hitler, one easily could have been similar to what was depicted in Inglorious Bastards and worked. My point is, even though the story in Inglorious Bastards isn't factual, it doesn't offend those passionate about WWII history because it is clear that it isn't factual although it could have happened that way. I am personally fascinated with "what if?" scenarios like the one presented in Inglorious Bastards or if the assassination attempt in Valkyrie paid off. Therefore, I say that the responsibilities films and other media have is to tell a good story albeit true or false. Of course, so long as they do not claim something false as true. As applied to this example, what makes a movie a good WWII movie is that it makes sense in the context of WWII, not necessarily that it actually happened in WWII.