SS
Lockheed Martin and JSFPO are big kids. If you read the defense media you will find that there are many reporters out there who seldom if ever quote F-35 critics and therefore rely almost exclusively on official sources for information about the program.
So if this is one of a number of conflicting reports, and if the the perceived results in BFM may have been due to a test pilot's familiarity with the F-16, there would be nothing simpler than to call some reporter and say "We feel this has been a bit one-sided and would like to see some balance - would you, personally, like the chance to sit down and talk to the pilots involved? We're just extending this to you right now..."
I can assure you that someone would jump on this in seconds. No major secrets would have to be spilled. The second-wave strike would be from LM's consultants, opining gravely on the way that a single out-of-context report could be so crassly exploited by self-described experts.
This hasn't been done so far.
As for "BFM isn't why you buy an F-35" - whether or not this is true, it begs the question, in that the assumptions underlying it are (1) that the EM deficit doesn't extend into the rest of the A2A arena and (2) that the F-35 weaponry and performance permit the avoidance of BFM.