The idea is that access "helps prevent abuses of the legal system through jury bias." The press certainly has a right to know. In fact, it's their responsibility to find out and to investigate any funny business, however, "a judge may decide to conceal the private information of jurors". For example, "In high-profile cases, disclosing juror information can sometimes attract undesirable media attention or intrusion.", and this is probably the reasoning behind Ellis' decision.

In fact, given what a high profile trial this is, I'm surprised that the jury wasn't sequestered. Then the jurors could have been protected from "media attention or intrusion" and perhaps their names/addresses could have been made public.