I guess CNN, History Channel, and other liberal media groups got tired of trotting out the usual Jesus Society hacks whenever they feel like attacking Christianity. Erhman’s been around for a while now, and his approach likewise finds its roots in the so-called Higher Criticism movement of a century ago. His assumptions are unsubstantiated speculations and wishful thinking.
Actually, they're textual analysis, much of it comparison of the earliest versions of the texts to what they say now. then he analyses how the differences may have occurred.
You may not like his conclusions, but they're based on much more substance than "unsubstantiated speculations and wishful thinking."