Michael is very clear that he doesn't make unbiased documentaries; his films are op-ed pieces with an agenda, and he's never hidden that.

"Sicko" is designed to expose the nastiness of the for-profit healthcare system in the US and how it maims and kills hundreds of thousands of people each year.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" was an op-ed piece, but was completely factually accurate; he hired fact checkers from the New Yorker magazine to vet everything to ensure there were no errors.

People may not like his way of presenting the facts, or of glossing over points that don't support his viewpoint, but it's hard to successfully argue any of the fundamental points he was making in his films... remember that he was one of the early ones to say that we were going to a war for which there was no justifiable reason, and the first to expose to mainstream media a lot of the facts surrounding the 9/11 issue.

"Sicko" is a lot less polarizing, unless you happen to work for an HMO. He makse a strong case for doing away with our current healthcare system in favor of one that's more compassionate and focused on the needs of everyone, rather than profits.