I'm coming at this from a Game of Thrones perspective (halfway through series 5 now so no spoilers please!)
It's actually incredibly frustrating to me when people excuse content by saying 'well it's based on Europe in the middle ages so showing rape of young teenagers is accurate'. No? Very few children were forced into marriages, particularly those that were consummated that early. Or when people excuse the portrayal of ethnic minorities (I feel that the Dothraki are portrayed as dark skinned sex and fighting obsessed clanspeople who are also slavers in a pretty racist way) by saying 'well that kind of reflects where world civilizations in similar geographies were 600 years ago' but don't point out that muslim armies (the 'eastern' civilisations that I assume the dothraki etc. are based on) apparently rarely raped women because Islam forbade it.
Perhaps this is a bit of a rant.
But I also see the point that GoT does portray violence (as opposed to glorious deaths) well, and might interest people to research more (lots of questions here)...
I don't know. On balance, how do people feel about the stereotypes being emphasised as much as small details of accuracy being corrected?
If you're asking for my own personal opinion, as a medieval historian, the portrayal of peoples in GOT doesn't really bother me. It is true that Westeros is based off of Europe. However, George Martin is creating his own universe. This includes creating ethnicities and cultures. So his portrayal of the Dothraki doesn't bother me as a fantasy culture. It's perfectly feasable for a nomadic, slaving culture to exist. You can say they're based off the Mongols and Huns, but they're unique in their own way.
What does bother me is the lack of historical accuracy in movies like Braveheart, Kingdom of Heaven, etcetera. But as far as keeping with GOT as the subject, it's a fantasy show meant to entertain, not educate, so as a Historian I'm not 'too' bothered by it.
Would like to see more shields, though. Honestly