On banned sponsorship testimony

First, I want to make it clear that I have not read the banned sponsorship testimony that's allegedly floating around on the internet. I'm not sure whether it is ethical for me to read it, given my particular station in life, so I would appreciate it if no one links me to it for the moment.

I'm just pondering whether it's productive for Canadian media sources to be all "OMG! There's banned sponsorship testimony that will make the whole country have to have another election!" I can see a few negative consequences arising from that:

1. People will go looking for said testimony, increasing the risk of tainting dude's trial.
2. People's interpretation of the seriousness of the testimony will be tainted ahead of time, so they'll be treating whatever facts come up as "OMG THIS IS BAD" because the media told them, not because they're thinking for themselves.
3. Alternatively, people might read the banned testimony and think "Oh, that's not so bad" because it doesn't live up to the hype, then consider most of this sort of thing to be less important than it is.

Obviously, I haven't seen the banned testimony yet and I don't wish to do so at this exact moment, so I'll reassess my position when I've read it.