Obviously some people have a better media persona than others, and one would hope that any organisation, including the MOD, would give some thought to this when selecting people for appointments that may involve media contact.
I don't think anyone has any real gripes with the motivation and intent of any of our personnel - it is the policy that is flawed.
For example, what Branson recognised was that the stakeholders in the aftermath of this incident extended well beyond those immediately involved, and included all potential passengers, not just on his services but on any operator's trains. He may have had commercial interests in recognising this, but I believe it is a model of what ought to be done, rather than what presently is done in our line of work.
In a modern, network-enabled military (where we all read PPrune, for starters), the stakeholders in the aftermath of an incident would include, amongst others, all operators of the particular aircraft type, operators of other types in the same theatre, the families and friends of anyone who might have been flying (or a passenger) in that aircraft - I mean, just look at the number of hits any thread on this topic gets on PPrune. The point is, it is not just the nominated next of kin of the people who were first on the scene who need to be 'looked after' by the chain of command. These interested parties are accustomed to being informed of the background to the issues that interest them within minutes, not days, weeks or even months. And the comparison with other organisations makes us look secretive, inefficient and erodes confidence - all bad things.
Open, honest reporting of accidents demands that information is accessible in a timely manner, to all who are interested in it, including the media, and not just the President of the BOI. Our present system uses the cloak of OPSEC to mask a systemic inefficiency in this area that is frankly, inexcusable.