I don't watch talk shows that don't involve questions of paternity or gender of origin, so I haven't seen that.
Even then, if I had to single out a party for scolding it would be the shows airing these interviews, particularly if they claim to be actual news outlets. Not that I don't think it's silly and deliberately provocative to go around maintaining the gloss of "research," mind you, but between the two I'm more annoyed with the shows that seek out and join in the promotion of fantasy and fact. But that that just leads back to the "news" discussion held elsewhere.
Regardless, I think the Church had a much stronger case when they went after Holy Blood, Holy Grail. (They did that, right? I'm not mis-remembering?) That particular tome is shelved in nonfiction.
(Although that book conveniently allows me to personally discount my father-in-law's economic and political theories without actually having as broad an economics background as he does. If he thinks HBHG is trooooooooo! all trooooooooo! then why should any of his other opinions persuade me?)
If *I* were in charge of publicity for the Church and I actually didn't want people to see (or believe) the film I'd either ignore it or take the "what a charming work of fiction. Would you like to know more about the actual history?" approach. Instead they've taken the "don't go! It's evil!" approach, which will likely be as effective in the US (land of "you can't tell me what to do! It's a free country!") as their stand against condoms and divorce.