Top headline at NYTimes.com: "Talk of Race, Barred in Trial"

This seems to be the New York Times' designated complaint:

Talk of Race, Barred in Trial, Drives Verdict Reactions

Similarly, a week ago the NYT tried to alert its true believers to the likelihood of an acquittal with the headline:

Zimmerman Case Has Race as a Backdrop, but You Won’t Hear It in Court 

That was a doozy of a news article, as you'll recall, reading like a parody I had written.

In other words, the jurors would have come up with the appropriate verdict if only the judge hadn't restricted the trial to mostly just the evidence. How can a jury be allowed to come up with a verdict based on facts without us explaining to them The Narrative?