First, there are multiple entities involved, including TEPCO, GE (US), and a GE subsidiary (perhaps GEI, the Japanese cooperative GE subsidiary). Second, evidently TEPCO was in a mode of hiding information, not telling GE to shut up. TEPCO is small and GE is large, so the scenario of TEPCO telling GE to do anything does not really have much validity to me.
If you look around on the net, you may find articles that describe that the GE subsidiary whistleblower was the person who brought the problem to the regulators (yet another entity) anonymously, so that his or her career would not be threatened. Somehow, the whistleblower's name was subsequently revealed to TEPCO in the ensuing investigation, against whistleblower regulations. So it is really GE and the subsidiary who might deserve some gratitude for trying to be straightforward, and TEPCO and the local regulatory agency that deserves more scrutiny.
TEPCO has a rotten reputation in the industry and amongst the Japanese population. If you have been watching the broadcasts, you hear over and over how the local population expresses skepticism over the press announcements that TEPCO made in the first few days of the crisis. This is because of all the previous TEPCO scandals, going back to the late 1960s, and not necessarily even nuclear related.
International sales and service is a very (very) rough and tumble environment.
GE may have been one of the better companies in this regard.
Competitors sometimes slash prices by slashing safety features and hiding deferred costs. Often under-the-table bribes are made to win contracts. Etc.
In the nuclear industry, some of the shenanigans could have disastrous downstream ramifications if indulged. In the large, GE was attempting to be straight in its dealings.
When dealing with nuclear plants, it is unwise to take technical shortcuts. This was relatively obvious to everyone on the GE and GE subsidiary side in the timeframe these reactors were built.
We'll see :)