There's probably a FAQ somewhere that points out that "Wait for the Report" is a ridiculous thing to write here.
As with the Legacy/Gol crash, this accident is the beginning of a long soap opera. The report will be the season finale (but not always the end of the show).
The problem is that most people only tune in for the premiere.
From what I've seen, all of the sources of information also have a strong, vested interest in the outcome of the investigation. But the "accident report" does not determine that outcome; popular opinion, legislation and executive action will serve as the measure.
The sources then release what they can, but with a specific interpretation in mind. Don't just release the video of the crash -- release a comparison with a normal plane at the end of the landing roll, so that news sources such as CNN will state:
Security video released by the air force showed TAM Flight 3054 speeding down the tarmac more than four times as fast as other planes landing around the same time. That raised the possibility of pilot or mechanical error instead of a slick and short runway widely cited as a likely cause.
The president wants a new airport, presumably because it's so expensive and time-consuming that it can be dropped when the horror of the current accident fades. The mayor wants a runway extension. The airport wants it not to be their fault, and has anyone heard from the judge who ruled the place safe for operations? All these groups want something, and they'll all get media time with their explanations for the accident, using every dirty trick they know. And it will be their voices that shape aviation in Brasil. They might even shape the vaunted "accident report".
Journalists are trolling here, and they're here for two reasons: to gather information (which, without verifying sources, even journos consider sleazy), and to gather context for the information they already have. Would you rather they get that context from the other groups with an interest in the outcome?
Heck, I'm annoyed by the "flash" discussion too, but I'd rather hear a journo stating that the "flash shows the accident already in progress", rather than "the video shows they landed too fast and too far down the runway".
The real problem is the mentality involved, though. When the airport head says the place is safe, because, in those conditions, they've had thousands of landings (and only one accident and a few incidents), someone needs to point out that those odds are not acceptable.