Whether a judge allows broadcast cameras inside a trial changes the tactics, not the goal. Either way, the public account of what happened in that courtroom has to reach people who weren't there, accurately.
When cameras are allowed, the work is making sure the plaintiff's side of the trial gets covered with the same seriousness as the defense's — briefing reporters on what to watch for, making experts and, with consent, family members available for context outside the broadcast feed itself. Raw footage without context often favors whichever side is more comfortable performing for a camera, which isn't always the side with the stronger case.
The job shifts to the same-day, plain-language account: what was said, what it means, delivered to reporters covering the trial from the hallway rather than the gallery. Court sketch artists and daily written coverage carry the story instead of a broadcast feed. Either way, the discipline is identical — accurate, timely, sourced to what actually happened in the room, not what would make for better television.