Well, I personally feel it was good that the death toll on the ground was minimalised, it made it more realistic to me. Have, for example, 2 747s piling in and killing thousands would have got ME on the sensationalist bandwagon.
It is of interest to me as a non-ATC person chatting to my boss and a colleague here at work who are both ex-ATCOs. My boss in particular is an ex-RAF and civil ATCO and the first person I would have expected to rubbish the programme. I was, therefore, surprised that she didn't. Whilst acknowledging the technical errors, she believes the film was not sensationalist and created debate on the subject of ATC procedures and the potential for a serious accident. Similarly, my colleague who has RAF ATC experience agreed with this view, again I'd have expected him to have said "what a load of cr@p" but he didn't.
At the end of the day, I'd rather have serious debate over the plausibilty of a serious mid-air than simple "clap-trap" dismissal. The latter simply means the programme hasn't worked.
By the way:
it was a tv show badly researched
It actually wasn't badly researched at all, it was how the writers chose to use that research.