It comes down to the term "over-represent." It's purely a statistical usage, factually neutral.
For instance, I could just as easily say that it's appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on the dangers of Islam. By that I would mean that the danger has for so long been ignored by the mainstream media and most politicians that the problem has increased in severity, and we are to the point of needing a disproportionate amount of attention given to it in order to get something done about it.
Now then, I have just used the same grammatical structure as Gore. Have I, anywhere in there, been untruthful? Have I justified lying? The only substantive difference is in the actual information contained within the message I want to spread, which is not the point I was making.
As Bill Clinton might say, I guess it depends on what the definition of "over-represent" is. As you use the term I cannot see any misrepresentation or lying. As the terms appears to me (or could reasonably be argued to appear) using "over" as a prefix to any verb suggests doing that thing beyond the point of reasonableness under the circumstances.
I take your meaning, and would not quarrel with your use, but I would happily quarrel with Gore's use of the same term, even if he intended it as you did. He deserves some attack on the margins, in light of his "He betrayed us, he played on our fears" rhetoric of the past. Let him take some time off message to explain himself, which he would no doubt do in a much less articulate manner than you have.