The media need information that is either 'black or white' - it's not news if it is 'grey' (ordinary) which is what the last few days of the trial seem to have been. (that's why attending a Des Hassler press conference rarely produces a newsworthy story).
So, the media will cover the Crown's allegations, which is where they get the prosecution's side of things. This is the salacious 'news'. The media may then cover some of the defence claims, but denying something is never as newsworthy as asserting it. And when experts are involved the poor old journo often can't understand the significance of what's being said (I know, I was a court hack in my early days). The media will then drop off until the two sides wrap up, and then they will report on the outcome.
Almost always, a guilty verdict will receive more coverage than an innocent one. That's how the phrase 'trial by media' came about.
TV is much worse than newspapers because they always sensationalise things, and their reporters don't have a clue about correct court reporting. They'll show the poor defendant walking into court and outlining the allegations, then they may not even report on the outcome if it is 'not guilty'. I've seen this many times.