I recently watched CNN's Finding Jesus program on the Shroud of Turin, which originally aired March 1. It seems to have had a relatively high viewership. Though the program made some good points, it mostly addressed the subject in an introductory and sometimes misleading way. Dan Porter's blog has had some good coverage of the show, and you can read a review by Barrie Schwortz here. Schwortz's expertise in photography and the Shroud are relevant, since CNN's program gave so much attention to Nicholas Allen's hypothesis that the Shroud image was created through a form of medieval photography.
Remarkably, CNN said nothing about Ray Rogers' work that undermined the findings of the 1988 carbon dating. The 1982 dating of the Shroud wasn't mentioned either, nor were the dating tests conducted by Giulio Fanti and his colleagues. Carbon dating is generally reliable, and the 1988 test was in some ways superior to other tests that have been conducted in an attempt to date the Shroud. But the other dating efforts have some significance, especially cumulatively. To not mention any of them is highly misleading. It's also misleading to not explain how easily the 1988 test could have been wrong. See, for example, William Meacham's comments quoted near the beginning of the post here. The same post goes on to discuss a lot of other evidence for the Shroud's authenticity that CNN didn't mention.
In a question and answer segment after the program, one of the scholars who participated in the show, Mark Goodacre, commented that "the figure appears to be nailed through the wrists", but he goes on to mention that "some" dispute it. The images he links from Antonio Lombatti are unconvincing. Lombatti's drawing that's supposed to correspond to the Shroud seems to place the blood significantly closer to the knuckles than the Shroud does. The drawing doesn't actually correspond to the Shroud. A better argument for the wound's location on the hand rather than the wrist has been made by Hugh Farey, in the comments sections of the threads here and here. It looks to me like the two most plausible locations for the wound on the Shroud are the bottom of the hand and the wrist. Either location would be different than the typical medieval portrayal of the wound. A medieval artwork or forgery probably would place the wound in the middle of the palm. Jesus could have been nailed at multiple locations on or around the hand, for reasons like the ones Goodacre mentions on the page linked above. But if the Shroud differs from most medieval portrayals of the nail wound, then that provides some evidence of authenticity.
The Shroud doesn't fit well with the interests and capabilities of a medieval artist or forger, nor does it make much sense as a medieval accident. But the 1988 carbon dating places the Shroud within several decades of its first explicit appearance in the historical record. That's a strong convergence of evidence against the Shroud's authenticity. However, I still think the evidence for authenticity weighs more overall. I've summarized some of that evidence here.