I prefer Star Wars, at least if we're going to reference Star Trek's crap involving the prime directive. Essentially, people claim Star Trek is all about humanism and so forth, but I always considered Star Wars far more humanist.
Star Wars shows all walks of life of varying technological levels (from tribal level to hyperdrive use) and of many different species working together to end a tyranical government who draws inspiration from Nazi Germany. It is a story about how one needs to fight against evil. Meanwhile, Star Trek starts out okay if cliche in the original series, but devolves into idiocy as soon as the Prime Directive is involved. The argument usually invoked is about how it would be interfering with fate to prevent a genocide or something similar.
The Prime Directive is an attempt to avoid influencing the course of events of a planet who hasn't achieved a certain level of technology. It's based off of the writers' ideas about how imperialism is bad. However, this gets sticky very fast because it is far less humanist to let millions die in a genocide one could have prevented. It's also far worse because then millions more die from preventable diseases, like how they aren't taught basics of germ theory and the like. It makes the Federation look far more like people who don't give a damn about anybody but the most technologically advanced species, casting aside any empathy or universal rights.
The anti-imperialism moral falls flat in the face of the implications of the story, since the planets with such technology aren't taking resources from other planets anyway. It instead suffers the problem of "characters care more about their nominal purity of principle than the actual morality of letting people die in clearly preventable ways." Essentially, the same problem of any story that has a genocidal maniac who needs to be stopped, but the hero won't kill the bastard even if it would prevent deaths. Because that would somehow be morally equivalent to murdering millions in cold blood.