Broadreach
It was on Band News on Saturday evening, and that is one of the most reputable news channels in Brazil (not saying much I know, but it wasn't on Globo). It is, as you point out nothing new, and as there were no casualties and no damage this was just a brief filler on the evening bulletin, from a police point of view rather than aviation.
It's difficult to see who would be covering up for whom. The original premise was pilot error by a foreign pilot, so what would be the motive for local agencies covering up anything? Let the news run and there is no blame on GRU. The TAP crew take the fall.
The NOTAMs issue is relevant, in that one runway was notified as closed and without full lighting, therefore the crew's mental picture would have been at odds with reality. They expected to see two live runways, and that is what they "saw", without access to the NOTAM to correct their mental expectations. The weather at the time may well have been contributary factor, heavy isolated showers are common at this time of the year.
The captured transmitter is reported to have an output of 3kW in the range 100-120MHz and to have been positioned on the approach path close to the airport. Most radios on tower frequency are in the range of 10-15W so a badly matched antenna with an input of 3kW is more than capable of swamping the frequency. This effect was also reported by a United flight taxi-ing at the same time.
Sorry, but I don't see a cover up going on. Who gains with this additional information? Surely a cover up would have just left the crew out to dry?
This report actually seems to reflect the reality of most aviation incidents, in that there is very rarely one causal event but a string of unrelated issues that come together at the worst possible moment. In this case the report explains the extenuating circumstances that led to a possible aircrew error. This crew probably still made a mistake, but the responsibility for that mistake doesn't lie 100% at their door.
Boa sorte