I have two replies. One is that the statistical analysis is not supported - and even dismissed by the person who supplied the information. (More on that after my second point).
Secondly, as a Christian, it wouldn't be "Good News" to find the tomb of Jesus. Christianity is birthed by the testimony of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. It permeates all the New Testament letters, the writings of the 2nd generation (those disciples of the disciples, etc). As Paul the Apostle wrote, If Christ is not raised then our faith is in vain, there is no salvation, and we are above all people the most miserable. Remove the resurrection - or truly find the tomb of Jesus, and Christianity is destroyed. Although it is interesting that just a generation ago, top scholars were saying Jesus was also a mythical person. My how thought has changed.
Now to the statistical data. Tal Ilan is the person who gave the information on which the statistical analyses was made. She tells the Scientific American magazine that she is really mad as to how the information was bent to make it appear to agree with the predetermined outcome of the film's premise. According to the S.A. article:
quoting:
Says Scholar Whose Work Was Used in the Upcoming Jesus Tomb Documentary: "I think it's completely mishandled. I am angry."
In researching our special report on the upcoming Jesus Tomb documentary, fronted by James Cameron (of Titanic fame), I encountered more than a few angry scholars and archaeologists.
Of special note was Tal Ilan, whose Lexicon of Jewish Names was essential to the statistical calculation made by Andrey Feuerverger, the U. of Toronto professor of statistics and mathematics who is quoted in the documentary as saying that the odds that any family other than that of the historical Jesus family would have the same names as that family, and be buried in the Tomb the documentary covers, are 600 to 1. In other words, that number argues, the odds are slim that this isn't the tomb of Jesus.
You'd be forgiven for finding such claims far-fetched, and with the exception of the historian, James Tabor, who was consulted for the film, the professionals in the field appear to find these claims no less incredible.
In an interview I conducted this morning, the scholar Tal Ilan, without whose work these calculations would have been impossible, expressed outrage over the film and its use of her work--she's the source of the quotation in the headline of this post."
-end quote.
Source: http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=says_scholar_whose_work_was_used_in_the&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Seeing that your post is prior to the broadcast, in hind sight I think it can be generally said that there is much wanting in the conclusions reached by the tomb seekers. Following the original Discovery broadcast, Ted Koppel led a discussion about the approach, the data and the conclusions reached in the film. It was very uncomfortable for the tomb seekers to hear the rebuttals, even coming from some of the very same sources they used in the film to make their point. Taking out of context, extrapolation, etc, in order to fit a preconceived conclusion. It is also interesting to note that Mr. Tabor two years ago had his book The Jesus Dynasty published. Mr. Tabor had all his reasons to explain where the tomb of Jesus was - and it wasn't in Talboit. Looks like his self-correction will need another correction.
Following on the heels of The DaVinci Code, the public is primed and ready for such speculation and unwarranted TV and movie docu-dramas. Unfortunately, our society is really dumbed down to realize the breadth of support that the story of the Resurrection, the foundational pillar of Christianity has.
Today for us it is faith, but built on a firm foundation passed down from the original witnesses. For those witnesses of the post resurrection appearances of Christ, it was fact, not faith.