If I show someone peanut butter and bread, but I neglect to mention that they can be combined into a peanut butter sandwich, I still don't think I've done anything polarizing. I would not consider that "showing exactly one side of the peanut butter sandwich debate".

But suppose peanut butter sandwiches were illegal, and people were fighting and dying in the streets for the right to make them. (That's what it was like in the 1960s and 1970s as far as civil rights were concerned).

So depicting a peanut butter sandwich might be illegal. Or it might be like marijuana, where depicting a peanut butter sandwich, while technically legal, is seen as an inducement to commit a crime and so is suppressed by extralegal means. On the other hand, depicting peanut butter and bread but no sandwich... well, obviously, a peanut butter sandwich is what would have come next, if the filmmakers weren't under the thumb of the government. Obviously

If sandwiches are contested, then showing them (or not showing them) is political. Civil rights was and is contested; Fred Rogers' presentation of a colorblind little slice of utopia to America's children was political too.