Very nice Slate piece. That guy does not like Moore (and personally, it seems), but any Moore supporter must take these sorts of factual criticisms seriously. Otherwise, what's the point?
Still, I found it interesting that he made no mention of the mother from Flint whose son dies in Iraq. Many commentators have cited this as the real power of the film, and the part most likely to stick with folks, even those who disregard the conspiracy stuff. (I haven't seen it, so I only speak about it from a distance.)
As for FOX being "centrist," I wonder if someone could please point out a conservative news source for comparison. Rupert Murdoch's papers throughout the world have very conservative editorial pages (see, eg, The New York Post); further, as noted, the commentators on Fox News are considerably more conservative in their outlook than other news channels in this country. While their presentation of news updates, etc., may well be "centrist," their spin of the facts in discussion (yes, even in the "no spin zone") is decidedly to the right. I have no problem with the claim that most news sources tend to be liberal. (I think it's because people going into journalism tend to look up to the Woodward and Bernstein, investigative hero model, rather than because of some liberal left conspiriacy. I am skeptical of conspiracies in general.) Still, why not just admit that FOX is on the right, and take that as a guide to interpreting their reporst and comments?
I advise everyone to cross check their news as often as possible. It's truly enlightening to see the same story reported from a number of different sources. That's as easy as fliping between the major news sources on TV, or clicking on the google news tab, and checking the story in a number of online sources. Check it out, and try clicking on the "and 543 related", etc., links below the lead stories. It hooks with everything from the ravings of al Jazeera to the moderate centrism of Murdoch's FOX.
Google News