You are presumed innocent till proven guilty. That is quite different from prejudging innocence as a fact before the trial even begins.
Look, I believe he probably did act in self-defense, but if your criticism of the media is that they prejudged him, not that they prejudged him as guilty rather than innocent, then you shouldn't prejudge him yourself if you want to be consistent.
There is no contradiction. The media has shown and continues to show not just willful ignorance but malice and journalistic malpractice by ignoring facts which have been known for over a year. They do not have an informed opinion on the case and are not qualified to offer one.
There has been little meaningful information presented so far in the trial that hasn't been known for a year. Anybody who has taken the time to read articles, to use just one example, proving that TM doubled back from the place he was staying to attack GZ is free to "prejudge" him with the same evidence that will eventually be presented to the jury.