There's more of an element of comedy to your reply! Me criticising folks? Ahem! You are not lying if you tell what you believe is the truth. I think Airlander had no reason whatsoever to believe, at the time, that a wirestrike had occurred out of sight. How the hell could they? Thus their
PR statement was based on the as-know facts and was perfectly honest. Accusing them of lying is the opposite of that rationale as there is no evidence or logic or point for them to have done so. Thus your reply is a complete non-sequitur, a self-contradiction.
Wait for the facts? Come into the real world! They had them to everyone's best of belief. Joe Blow off the street randomly asks
PR if the accident was caused by a wirestrike. Everyone had seen it come over the road with the mooring cable hanging slack. Everyone knows there are no wires in the immediate vicinity. The cable snagged nothing. Then there was an accident. As far as all who witnessed the event a wirestrike was a ludicrous suggestion, it didn't happen because they saw it didn't happen.
What on earth do you expect
PR to say? "Ooh! Good theorey, I'll check and tell you in six hours" or "No, of course not, we all saw what happened, there are no wires there to hit".
No one could/would magically imagine that an apparent control accident on landing would be associated with a completely unguessed-at wirestrike in an earlier part of the flight
that no one knew anything about at the time. PR are just journalists, not psychics.
Does anyone (least of all
PR covering an unusual event on the spot ) go and do hours of research before answering a direct question who's answer is crystal clear because everyone saw the event? That really would deserve criticism for being super-evasive.