It cites reviews of the documentary, goes into some depth about the background of the primary source of the documentary, including the author's own firsthand contact with that source, provides the alternate case study of Ted Cruz's poor experience with CA, cites David Karpf, and culminates with a paragraph-long citation to a well-known peer-reviewed study about the effectiveness of political campaign marketing.

By the standards of these kinds of articles, it is the opposite of what you said it is.

That doesn't make it right, but does refute the one criticism you managed to marshal.