Interesting reference. What I like about it and Michael Moore's movie is that this all gets us asking questions about things we wouldn't be asking about otherwise.
I would like to raise the issue of how we determine what is truth. In both the case of Farenhiet 9/11 and this expose, most of what we are dealing with is conclusiory in nature rather than purely factual. The line between what is fact and what is conclusion is often quite indistinct.
A few years ago I had to research this issue from a legal standpoint. In California, when involved in a legal action you have the right in most cases to ask the judge for detailed written findings for review by a higher court. These used to to be called Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Several years ago this was changed to be called simply a Statement of Decision. I think the older nomenclature was better because it was more distinct and therefore clear. Why did this matter? Because an appellate court generally does not review findings of fact which a trial court is in a better position to determine. Rather the appellate court review for errors in conclusions or application of law. The problem is in many cases what is a factual finding is a conclusion which overlaps quite significantly with a conslusion of law. Your case may hinge upon such distinctions.
When we start looking at what are lies or truths we are generally making conclusions first about what are facts and what signifigance we give to facts which may be only conclusions based on facts which are themselves only conclusions.
What I find in these discussions is that we all generally have already formed some level of conclusion and are looking for "facts" to support our earlier conclusions. So if you don't like G.W.Bush and his policies you tend to conclude Michael Moore has done a good job on exposing him. If you like G.W.Bush and his policies you tend to dislike M. Moore and his enrertaining propaganda and want to see it exposed as lies.
Personally I don't find Farenheit 9/11 or the exposure of Michael Moore's lies factual. Both appear as propagation of certain viewpoints with very selective use of "facts", themselves often comprised of many conclusions.
Is either of these viewpoints the truth? Not to my mind. For me the truth derives from considering all these efforts to support a viewpoint, adding my own efforts to muster facts, synthesizing a theory of reality and observing further, whether my theory has much predictive value upon which I may base my actions.
A large engrossing task that is never done. I am thankful that others do so much work to provide me fodder from which to work.
