I agree that there will be such bugs. Reviewing the code may or may not reveal them. It seems to me that if the question is one of whether or not the device works properly, then submitting to testing by an independent laboratory is a much better way to find out, and one that doesn't compromise the company. In my experience, we prove that we meet software requirements by testing, not by peer review.

If you want to learn about something complex and nuanced, then your television is the wrong place to look. It has been argued by sociologists like Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, and even by admen themselves, like Jerry Mander in his Four Arguments for The Elimination of Television, that the medium of television is a poor conduit for complex ideas.

Even the networks which have not arguably been "dumbed down," like the History Channel mentioned here, are a pretty poor provider of accurate detail, although they are certainly entertaining. For example, the "Engineering an Empire" program covering they Byzantines suggested that the Emperor Justinian was a brilliant leader, whereas in fact he was not a visionary at all, but an easily manipulated tool whose military victories in Europe, vaunted by the program, were provided by his general Belisarius (cf. Lord Mahon's The Life of Belisarius).

Personally, I recommend books for the fundamentals and periodicals from the IEEE or ACM for the leading edge. Television is only good for a broad overview of the current buzz, not for diving deep into anything.