It is a question tied to overall transparency of our judicial system and an issue with deep roots in terms of historical analysis. It doesn’t mean the question doesn’t have at least some reasonable arguments and concerns on both sides, but you sound like you think it is absurd that it would even be considered or some bizarre media conspiracy thing. It is not. It is a relatively common request in high profile cases and there are understandable public policy reasons why the benefit of such transparency could outweigh any harm. A good summary quote from one case notes “Knowledge of juror identities allows the public to verify the impartiality of key participants in the administration of justice, and thereby ensures fairness, the appearance of fairness, and public confidence in that system.” [In re Globe Newspaper Co., 920 F.2d at 94.] Historically, the information has been provided – especially after a verdict is rendered. There have been some exceptions. There has been a movement across at least a few different individual states to enact new laws making things more restrictive (and interestingly, the states include Texas and California, so it isn’t as if it some pure philosophical issue on one side of the political spectrum).