There would have been just as little coverage on the murderer had he been a white Scotsman. That's because of the strict UK rules on prejudicing a fair trial and contempt of court. This means that the media have to delay all in-depth coverage of a criminal until after trial and sentence. All they can do is publish the name (and not even that if it's a juvenile), and home location, and report anything that's said in open court. This applies whatever the crime, and whoever the criminal.
What you say is quite correct.
However, the rules protecting juveniles cover a very broad spectrum, from the little boys stealing a candy bar all the way up to mass-murderers caught, quite literally, red-handed. The magistrates or judges at today’s hearing have the power to overturn such restrictions, if it is deemed in the public interest. In this case I cannot see any valid reason why they should continue to protect the identity of the suspect, and it might even defuse the situation.