Is my point really that hard to get? Or is everyone deliberately evading it?

Well, the point itself is pretty clear, but I think I'm having trouble swallowing the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy wrapper. I have trouble in particular with the subset The Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy, seeing as how 99.99% of the media in this world is owned by huge corporations or individual capitalists like Rupert Murdoch with a natural conservative bent. The Leftist .01% is Ted Turner, who got royally screwed by Steve Case as the fortune he built at CNN has been virtually destroyed by the decline in AOL stock prices.

Part of the problem, too, is that in order to make a case for equivalence in the treatment of Lott and Murray, you have to assume that they are inherently equivalent as individuals. Lott's a national figure, whose name is known to anybody who glances at a newspaper front page or watches/hears national broadcast news; while Murray is unknown to most people outside her home state.

Objectively, Lott was much bigger news than Murray.

--Robert