> you are assuming that the purpose of the show was to maximize educational potential,

You're assuming wrong. But why should a work only have one limited purpose, to the extent that worshippers are violently opposed to it having multiple purposes?

Why do they dictate that the good has to come with bad? Why not good plus good plus good?

> think the purpose was to tell a story of a crazy event that happened

On your definition then, it failed, because it didn't tell the story of "what happened".

> that hopefully gets people more interested in the event to learn more about it.

The better way to do that is not to lie. Tell the truth. Those who decide to dig deeper will be further amazed as they learn that what you've told them is actually true.

> I think you are in a very small minority of people who watched the show who thinks the show didn’t make sense

That's not what I said.

> or was not very impactful.

Ok, that's a second mistruth, and kind of a big lie considering I've said the opposite.

> one of the most acclaimed shows of all time,

That's a common logic fallacy. Popular doesn't mean right. Or true. Or good. It just means popular.

> universally beloved.

Also false.

> that makes me disappointed in the artistic choices

That's common among the die hard fans. They won't accept any room for improvement, and thus to uphold that, they have to eschew any admission of disappointment.

> I don’t think a straight factual telling of the events would be as good as what we got,

No, it would have been better.

> You seem to be very aggressive in the attacks

No. The facts are what are aggressive. You just can't really refute them so you're demonizing them. You opened with that same projection.

> saying they abandoned integrity.

It doesn't matter whether I'm saying it or not, they did. At inception, a moral choice was made: do I tell the truth or do I not?

Consider your own life. You make choices. Will I be violent to my spouse or is that off the table? Will I steal from my employer or is that a red line I don't cross? Whether a person finds these choices hard or not isn't the main point. The main point is that breaking these lines is a choice. Some choices are akin to breaking glass. Once done, you can't undo it.

> Why are you so upset about this particular story?

Yours is an astute question.

Nuclear disinformation and false propaganda is on track to causing early destruction of society as we know it. An incredibly popular and influential piece of media like this is planting false beliefs in younger generations who won't know they've been duped until it's too late, if ever.

There's existentially dangerous hubris in thinking "oh this can only happen if a moustachioed comic villain does a bad thing, so as long as watch out for that guy, nuclear is safe and clean" or "nuclear accidents only happen when crooked Russia cheaps out on their graphite rods, so we should be good". It's a message saying "Who needs a scientific community when all we need is that one heroic (and non-existent) beautiful woman to save the day?"

It's harmful oversimplification to the point of falsehood. And it lets people handwave risks and support fatally misguided priority setting.

If "I, Tonya" wants to be a fun quasi-fiction, who cares? That won't hasten global suffering. Works like Chernobyl might. Or they have the potential to help, but don't.