Take another example: A kid vandalizes property and the judge gives the kid the option (and the option is important but not dispositive  in the constitutional calculus) of doing community service repairing properties and  writing a letter of apology  or facing jail.

  The judge's alternative would amount to involuntary servitude and  the 13th Amendment specificaly allows that as punishment for crime but writing the letter,  one could argue infringes the 1st amendment  just as the reporter's  producing the public service story does.  In both cases the act of writing is merely labor and the 1st amendment really becomes implicated when the judge exerts control of the content of the writing. Requiring the kid to write an "apology" is control of content  the same as requiring the reporter to write a story on the importance of obeying court orders (or whatever).

  I guess my point is that sometimes, as lawyers, we can be "hyper-legal" and not look at the benefits of creative sentencing when we perceive some legal issue.

For the court to have any jurisdiction to prevent the press from contacting jurors - injunctive relief, at its heart - the Court has to have provided notice and an opportunity to be heard to the individual it now seeks to punish for allegedly violating the injunction.  It should not (and arguably cannot) rely on private entities to effect its orders.  While the reporter, as an agent of her station, could be disciplined by the station for screwing up, the only people/entity the judge could go after would be the station - assuming the station was a party to the gag/non-contact order in the first place.

That's pretty much straight-up from the law of agency.  

While I recognize there's a very strong interest in ensuring the press does not interfere with the progress (and more importantly the fairness) of a particular trial, shortstopping and corner-cutting on the rules of law which apply - like due process - here is sadly symptomatic of something going on everywhere in our society.  People do not understand (or are willing to ignore) the limits of their power (or of the power of those who would wield power against them), possibly in an attempt to get along.  But, once they compromise their power (or right) to ignore some functionary strutting about and wielding their office, they lose it in the future.

i guess the broader question here is, who's constitutional rights trump who's?: mr. jeff's right to a fair trial, vs the media's first amendment right to free speech? those rights aren't, and never have been, absolute.

as an agent of the tv station, the reporter had an obligation to be aware of whatever legal constraints the tv station was operating under. granted, her supervisor should have advised her, but ignorance is no legal bar to sanctions.

i believe the reporter, as an agent of the station, is just as culpable, and therefore subject to punishment, for failing to abide by the judge's ruling.

the ruling was made public, thereby providing the required notice to all affected parties. i don't believe it had to be specifically delivered to every potentially affected individual in the jurisdiction. as a result, all affected parties were equally able to challenge the order. that they didn't is their problem, not the court's.

truth be told, i'm not so sure that tv station wants to piss off a judge either. they have ample means, legally, of making someone's life difficult.

  That lessens but does entirely eliminate the 1st Amendment issue. As I said above the exertion of control over content remains as it would in odering a letter of apology).

  The reporter is free to refuse to produce a report and then appeal if the judge enters the contempt order. also, if she produced and submits a report but the judge finds it insufficient and enters the contempt order she could appeal that as well.  I'd have a problem if the judge refused to stay judgment pending the appeal but I would not expect him to do so.  Obviously, the woman is no threat to society.

  Even the Salt lake Tribune article is not clear as to what if any evidence the reporter presented in defense against the charge of contempt beyong the general no actual knowledge/ lack of intent to violate the order.

  It's also not clear whether the judge discredited such evidence and found she did have actual knowledge or found that constructive notice was sufficient beause his decorum order was public record. (that's also an important question though not a 1st amendment one, but rather a due process one).