TM2YC even at the time that ZD30 came out, there was heavy criticism for its narrative. It's a long, complicated subject to get into here, but essentially, movies in the US can be made with the assistance/blessing of the U.S. Department of Defense, or without. They have a whole office to co-ordinate with the media. If a TV/film-maker co-ordinates with them, then they get access to filming locations, equipment, personnel, even privileged information. But this requires script approval by the DoD. If they don't like how they're portrayed, and the film-makers insist on keeping it in the script, then DoD stops co-operating. There was such an unprecedented level of cooperation between Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, and the DoD/CIA that there was actually a Senate investigation afterwards to determine if the CIA had breached protocol.
This begs the question: how can you present a fair and unbiased portrayal of controversial (possibly criminal) activities when the perpetrators of those activities have final approval over how they're presented? In this particular case, it leads to the ZD30's CIA-approved narrative that their torture program was a necessary evil which lead to information which allowed the US to track down Osama Bin Laden. Even at the time of the film's release, we knew this to be false, which many critics (including Pulitzer-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald) actively spoke out against. Eventually, the controversy over presenting the movie in a docudrama style as "based on true events" while completely fabricating the narrative around the US' torture program tanked the film's Oscar chances. Initially glowing praise meant it lead Oscar nominations. But by awards time, it lost all of them except for Sound Editing.
The Torture Report actually has some scenes showing this narrative of "torture is a necessary evil" being propagandized to the American public through ZD30 and the TV series
24. I'd add that you have to question a lot of other Hollywood films that have cozy DoD relationships, notably films by Michael Bay, Pete Berg, and Clint Eastwood. They all often let jingoism leak into the way they supposedly present things as just 'the way it was'. Ridley Scott might be the best example of towing the line. He has a close DoD relationship, and I think he manages to convince them they're being well-represented while still telling stories that show some of the negative aspects. Then there's Oliver Stone, who has a very contentious relationship with the DoD. He often has to limit his filming locations or aspects of what he films, because he argues with the DoD so much. So he ends up becoming one of these filmmakers who draw more on personal research and experience, even though he does attempt to co-ordinate with the DoD and see what assistance he can get from them.