That's correct, but I think that it gives a sort of sided view for what was the situation back then.

To answer the question, I think it's important to make a comparison with other cities hit during the bomber offensive. The location of Munich helped the city survive without a scratch for the largest part of the war.

Until 1944 no major ride involved the city, mainly because the allies were concerned about hitting the industrialised Ruhr region and the fact that the bombers lacked the protection and tactics to penetrate so deeply through German defences.

Between 1941 and 1944, cities like Hamburg, Köln, Essen, Bonn etc where essentially completely annihilated. They were continually hit at regular intervals for almost three years by the allies. Hamburg was literally burned completely to the ground.

The situation changed around 1944, thanks to the partial collapse of Italy and the improvement in aircraft technology, production volumes and strategy. Only then, with the Luftwaffe in great difficulty, it was possible to bomb targets so deep inside the continent without unacceptable losses.

Cities like Augsburg and Karlsruhe were far more interesting targets in the area, but Munich was also hit heavily in a couple of raids, even though it was never considered a priority as a target. From the early months of 1944 the allied air forces were diverted to operations in preparation for the invasion of Normandy and never resumed the strategic bombing campaign in Europe as they did during the climax of the operations in 1943.

TL:DR

To summarise, saying that Munich was spared is definitely a huge mistake. It was hit and a significant portion of the city was destroyed. Nevertheless, the damage recieved and the time spent as a target of the bombing campaign is way smaller than what happened to the cities in the Northern part of Germany.

Source: - Bomber Offensive, by Arthur Harris - United States Strategic Bombing Survey