What the movie does present is a movement of which one may easily become a part. It does this by presenting a miniscule subset of information about the situation in northern Uganda. There is more on the website; but even this paints extremely broad strokes. The website focuses on how to contribute, not your contribution's effects. I'd go as far as to say the website focuses on America, not Uganda.
Is that such a bad thing? I don't know all the information about northern Uganda. As I've mentioned recently, nobody does. A film should have a message, and Invisible Children does. A film should play to emotions, and Invisible Children does. The film presents very little incorrect information, by simply presenting no information. Maybe too much information would be too discouraging? Maybe it would warrant an R rating, excluding a very impressionable fraction of its audience?
You may notice that I have not presented any information about northern Uganda on my blog, either, perhaps for those exact same reasons. My blog focuses on ideas, not information. Because if I just wrote raw information, well... you've got better things to do than read that. And I don't want to offend anybody.
I can't help but compare myself with the documentary makers. Consider this post my interlude: that relatively tame ten minutes in the middle of the film where you allow yourself to remember that it's just a movie. You've seen all this information already: it's just presented a bit differently. Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out how to get my message across.
You can tell I'm a rookie.