Personally I don't pay enough attention to what City does off the field to comment. I've noticed their attendance is pretty good and that documentary is pretty neat. Have they disconnected themselves from the history or heart of the club?
I'd dispute that their attendance is "good". Pretty sure last season they averaged 10k empty seats and their ground wasn't full fairly often this season. And it's not because City doesn't have the supporter base. Fans being priced out of the game is an issue everywhere, but when you pursue an agenda focused on commercialization and internationalization, you inevitably disconnect yourself from the locals. There are some clubs that have done both and done them well. Liverpool and Tottenham both seem to have grown their base and become more competitive, while keeping the homegrown supporters happy.
Some of it is just fixture congestion. A club like City is involved in all these competitions, you can't possibly go to everything. But I don't think you can look at all those empty seats and say they're doing enough, and that's the danger when you play the sugar daddy ownership roulette. United on the other end of the spectrum could do nothing and sell out Old Trafford, meanwhile no one there recognizes the club they're supporting. Luckily for City, they struck gold with Pep and have managed to continually win.
And to add to that, I don't see how you can disconnect the shady conduct of ownership that's recently been referred to UEFA, and has been discussed here ad-nauseam, from the club itself. If ownership deems that acceptable conduct, how is that not co-opting club ethos?