Well, not to be annoying, but real Crime Scene Investigators rail endlessly about CSI and all its children over here (I have a policeman friend here who watches all of them religiously and then puts out vitriolic posts about the howling innaccuracies afterwards - sound familiar?)
The problem is that there really is a sizable percentage of viewers who think it IS accurate and who will argue just as endlessly that because there really is DNA testing, the programme must be realistic in all facets.
At least the writers/producers etc on CSI admit freely when they make a really huge gaffe - they were decently ashamed and honest about their dialogue concerning the impossibility of pre-seventeenth century Japanese armour in the episode where the lead CSI dude remarks that the armour must be fake because "Japan didn't have an army until the eighteenth century" (???!!)
So we are not being overly picky - it is any profession's duty, I think, to note innaccurate or misleading bits of media presentation. It's somewhat like MacDonalds' defending its trademark and copyright even against small and unknown "competitors": they have to, even when it seems ridiculaously overbearing because if they don't, it becomes a de facto cessation of those rights and ownerships.
In the same way, archaeologists arguing against misrepresentation in small things protects the profession from later accusations that they don't give a rat's ass till there's money/prestige/politics/jobs/etc. involved.