That was my concern. This is a bit difficult but I'll try to make sense.
In a trial the evidence is presented to the jury by way of a process of examination of witnesses. This is 101 I know but I have to say it. The jury watches each witness and they just don't read a transcript. They get to watch the witness and they put weight on the demeanour of the witness as well as anything else. Both counsel are there to not just elicit or test evidence but to allow the jury to evaluate the witness.
Now, you introduce the media madness that surrounded the Peterson investigation and trial and the dynamics change radically. The jury ceases to be the trier of fact - anyone who watches Fox is the trier of fact. Pretty soon a trial isn't about facts, it's about public opinion.
I was disgusted by what I saw with the Peterson trial. The common law criminal justice system is highly procedural and adversary and it's archaic and I think it's past its use by date but it's in force. When the finely nuanced, highly procedural processes of a common law criminal trial are swamped by the populist media then for mine the chances of a fair trial just went right down the toilet.
The issue here is 1st Amendment Rights (freedom of speech) vs the Rights of the accused. The media has successfully argued that not not allowing it full and free access to all available facts, and the freedom to present to the public those facts, editorialized or not is an infringement on the 1st Amendment.
I deally, I agree. It IS an infringement on the 1st Amendement to restrict access.
However, as cliche as it sounds, I firmly believe in the old axiom that there are just some things "the people" don't need to know.
As it pertains to a case such as this one, or OJ's original trial or Peterson's trial, where do the Rights of the accused begin and the media's and/or public's rights to free and unfettered acces to information end?
It is my opinion that the Rights of the accused be paramount. In OJ's first trial and in Peterson's trial, these men were on trial for their very lives. Hardly low-risk stakes. The media convinced the public of their guilt before trials ever began. To claim they found an unbiased jury would mean they would have to drag 12 people out of caves on deserted islands.
Since it obviously can and has influnenced juries, the media should not be allowed ANY information other than the name of the accused and the charges against them, IMO, until the trial has concluded.
This thread itself is a perfect example of "why not." Invariably, if OJs name comes up, the knuckleheads come out of the woodwork to claim he got away with murder. Most that I have run into cannot say "how" thought. They just parrot the media, but have no substance to their accusations.
Then there are idiots like the (B)Ass who want to squeal discrimination when the fact is, in this case, OJ is guilty as supported by the facts and a jury found him guilty. IMO, OJ is doubly stupid for pulling a stunt like this KNOWING that the vast majority believed he got away with murder and ANY excuse to nail his ass to the wall would be good enough. He was dumb enough to give them that excuse.
Banging and homosex could be different ... unless that is what you had on your brain! 
