Well, seems to me that when various facts of the case become public knowledge, it becomes very hard to doctor them to suit an agenda. The more in the public arena in the way of facts, the better. And we know they have the data, they have told us they do.
But they cannot give us half facts. That will cause mis-interpretation and cries of coverup when they do give us their interpretation. Whatever they give must be able to stand by itself.
And if the final interpretation of facts is open to question, you and I will be here to question them, won't we?
So they know they had better get things right the first time if they don't want to have egg on their face. And they know that they have to get the information out quickly but accurately in a manner that will cause the least confusion and doubt possible.
Personally, I would find the whole problem a tremendous headache. Let us just peacefully speculate on the limited data we have received, and wait relatively patiently to have our partial interpretations of the accident confirmed or refuted. Turmoil only has the potential to slow the investigation.