TV and movies are usually depicting fictional events. Some of the events are clearly realistic, some are clearly not. Generally, these fictional works involve some measure of suspension of disbelief, as well as accepting events as plausible or true even if they are not.
Most people are not expert chemists, physicists, etc. and might not understand enough science to know exactly where the line between fact and fiction lies. This is not a bad thing. Not everyone is a surgeon, or a car mechanic, or an electrician. We all use devices every day that we do not completely understand how they work. Most people know how to drive, but could not build a car, for example.
Part of making a good movie is making it look realistic despite being clearly not so. Good movie-makers depict actions or devices in a way that might be real, even if they are not. Some of them may look real to a person who does not understand the science that says they are or are not possible.
Unraveling these movie devices is central to understanding the dividing line between fact and fiction. This site has many questions about what motivates or otherwise impels a character to perform a given act or say a given line. How is that any different than explaining whether a given act or device is grounded in fact or fiction?
These questions are interesting, and should be on-topic. The realism tag looks like it could use some editing, but certainly not blacklisted.