See, I don't think it's irrelevant. Freedom of speech & the fact that people don't have perfect information means that people can suspect gov't of having bad policy even if the policy is formed w/good intentions & turns out to be flawed only because of lack of perfect information.
I think you wrote a better episode than what is actually shown. Beto made a bunch of claims without evidence. Then he witnessed the core episode. He initially may have been skeptical but why would he make up his mind without all the information? So that wouldn't make sense.
There's two separate things going on. One is his initial claims. The other is his investigation of the current core episode. But he did not know the facts. His initial claims are not ever refuted.
Your main problem is that Starfleet doesn't lie. And people would not suspect it to lie. So if they had imperfect information they would realize that. But you could use another planet to tell the story that you are describing. And it would be better than what we saw
Why did Starfleet not tell people the truth anyway? Come think of it.
Ortegas lacked perfect information as well which is why his documentary starts off skeptical before becoming less so. I really like the idea of this episode & I think its competent enough w/out being great--I say 7/10 for this reason (the episodes you mention I would ultimately rate as 8 or 9).
(Save for Encounter at Far Point which I think I like less than this SNW episode, though Far Point is still better than Discovery's pilot which I genuinely dislike).
Doing a documentary as means to talk about gov't policy is not something we see in those older superior episodes which so rightly are concerned w/compassion for non-humanoids. There is some sloppiness to this episode of SNW, but fundamentally it worked for me thematically & narratively.
But if it doesn't work for you because of the flaws of that episode, I get it!