Again, I suggest you consider why I put "reporting" and "educate" in quotes. Then ask what I'm really postulating. My statements aren't as literal as you appear to take them.
This is not a "logical" argument. I was trying to make a statement (using a bit of irony) about the seemingly conflicting notions of what constitutes "documentary." The very fact that many people do expect "objective truth" from documentaries -- and especially that this facet must be considered as part of the definition -- actually speaks to why Moore is so effective.
I doubt that Moore himself believes he's making a "logical argument" (although I believe he's convinced of its "truth," at least in a certain sense). His tool is satire, and the hullabaloo is integral to his art. It's a risky approach for a documentary, but it seems he's hit his mark.