No, a moral framework wasn't even implied
in the documentary at all.
That's really just a matter of sensitivity of the audience.
In fact, most of the time, when the subject of the impact that caricatures of stereotypes or whatever are discussed, especially in an academic setting, or in the form of an appeal to others to be conscious of them they're not usually presenting it in a moral framework, but in the framework of problem-solution framework.
Also, prejudice and bigotry are not the same thing. Prejudice is literally making judgements with insufficient information, bigotry is an intolerance for others of specific groups.
I don't think the caricatures in the Simpsons are ultimately bigoted, but they are certainly
written by people for others who would get the joke. Hence why Apu was the problem, because really, only people in New York or the West Coast (where the simpsons is written) would have really understood what stereotypes were being caricatured, so for others who wouldn't get it, their attempts to try
and understand what is an exaggeration and what is an ironic reversal of reality would be how they form their own understanding of the culture that Apu is from (which actually is unspecific as India actually consist of a ton of cultures of which Apu is really an amalgamation)