Waketurb, as tantalising as that prospect sounds, I doubt the mods here would relish the prospect of more libel than you could shake a stick at.
Having said that, a quick search of my posts should reveal all that I am prepared to say about BD and Aviance in public, which constitutes everything I have proof of, but certainly not everything I suspect or know yet do not have proof of. Since I do not use an alias or conceal my identity from those I accuse/criticise, I feel obliged to follow the rules of this site and law in general. I'm sure there are others that won't, so be careful what you wish for.
There is of course a subtle difference in actually 'covering up' and putting a good 'spin' on things. Anyone who works in this industry knows that any management claim of "Safety is No 1" is basically missing the out the qualifying part; "...as long as it is cost effective in the long run". Does that mean that they are covering up the fact that safety is not as good as it could be in every respect?
The generalisation that we won't ever hear the truth from the ME/E cultures is as misleading as the assumption that we will always hear the truth from our erstewhile management/government in the west. The subtleties lie in how good the respective cultures are at convincing their own people. We may not believe what they claim, and they probably trust our claims to the same extent. It gets interesting when you solicit comment from each culture about their own respective management/government claims.
Since the M/E airline market is mostly from the M/E, they only have to fool some of the people all of the time. I doubt they give a toss what we think about the truth or their version of it.
As you point out, the exceptions are to be applauded and encouraged. I have to say that BA's QAR system is above and beyond the call of duty, regarding costs as well as personal sacrifice (in terms of privacy) from the pilots. Then again, they aren't making the information it gathers public. So is that a cover-up?