One cannot obtain and view the data with preconceptions as to how it will/should/may go. It may just go precisely where, "to one's surprise/disappointment/chagrin/delight, (name it), one wants/does not want, it to go".
Quite. And I'm certain that one of the primary motivations behind the agreed restrictions was precisely to keep the data in the scientific realm, and out of the hands of interested parties who would try to "spin" it.
Now it seems to me that those parties demanding the release of the data have thus far been very cagey about exactly what the grounds are for doing so, outside of a gross misrepresentation of the final report's conclusions - they claim the report puts the accident down to pilot error (when it does not), and makes scant reference to the THS behaviour (when the writeup on that aspect is not only present, but also fairly detailed).
Given this misrepresentation, I can't help but feel that said parties are less interested in flight safety than they are trying to insert a note of doubt into public opinion via the press, in much the same way they did with AF296.