First up, folk, please do keep to the reasonable boundaries of courtesy.
Do note that some (and 411A would be amongst the first to put his hand up) are adept at stirring the pot a little ... and others are equally adept at rising to the bait.
Now I don't claim to know more than a few folk by their usernames so I apologise if I have omitted some in the following comment by my ignorance - folk such as lomapaseo and mad (flt) scientist are experienced engineers with many years experience in aircraft OEM employment - their "oil on troubled waters" comments are commended to the readership.
With the caveat that I haven't seen the documentary (and don't intend to as most of this genre are a tad sensationalist, a bit short on other than superficial fact, are intended for the general viewing market and, generally, are a tad boring to Industry engineering folk), the reality is that
(a) any OEM (aircraft, automobile, washing machine, push bikes, pens and pencils, etc....) has problems with design/materials/manufacture to a greater or lesser extent. (FYI my background includes aircraft, truck, bus, building infrastructure OEM work)
(b) where the market, alone, is the arbiter, those whose products are significantly inferior .. fail.
(c) where there is prescribed regulatory oversight (such as aircraft), the output standard generally is fine and such problems as arise are addressed appropriately sooner or later. Those who are consistently recalcitrant risk the lifting of their TCs, significant financial or other regulatory penalty, etc...
(d) some of the previous comments indicate that the doco was concerned with such things as parts rework - fact of life in any area of manufacturing - if you were to be worried about this, you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Note that this doesn't mean that ALL defective parts are reworked .. however, it would be silly to scrap parts with minor defects which are amenable to rework while still retaining strength and reliability requirements.
(e) if we are to be worried about the effect on aircraft of flying into the ground .. then I would suggest that that is a bit on the conservative side. Aircraft are neither intended nor designed for such non-aerial activities. However, aircraft are designed to withstand a reasonable impact of a controlled nature (ie forced landing) with a reasonable probability of occupant survival. If, however, the impact is well outside these boundaries then it is reasonable to expect that the ground will win .. every time.
(f) if we are concerned with inappropriate practices within an OEM, such things do go on from time to time - I have no specific information regarding the present subject so I can only comment in a general way. That such things occur is unacceptable and, from my observations in a lengthy career in manufacturing and maintenance .. the naughty folk eventually get caught out and brought to account.
(g) whether we like it not, docos near invariably approach the subject with an editorial agenda. I have experience of at least one such animal relating to an aircraft/OEM vendetta and I can only observe that the doco was biassed to the point of being very unreasonable. To the public viewer, however, the material was presented as pure Gospel. Fortunately, the public viewer tends to forget all this in a short time frame, the advertisers are happy and we all get on with life.
(h) bringing irrelevant stuff into docos is standard fare .. especially if it is eye-catching - to wit, the controlled impact demonstration.
(i) drawing agenda-driven conclusions, likewise. It is far more exciting to conclude that there is a conspiracy .. rather than, perhaps, just a rational process which fixes a detected problem.
I could go on .. but, hopefully, you get the basic idea ...