It's my understanding that there is, and has been for a long while, a steady background of threats and the occasional crackpot action, against any sitting President. I think the explanation is as simple as you said it was: "Doesn't look to me like any conspiracy, or organized effort". In other words, all in a days' work for the Secret Service.

Thinking back on it, I remember how, for example, Squeaky Fromm was a seven-day sensation for having taken a potshot at Ford, in public in front of the cameras, on US soil (SF, I believe). But it passed quickly, except for the occasional report on her trial and sentencing. OTOH, Hinckley's attempt on Reagan that drew blood drew proportionately more media attention. And you can be sure that discovery of an organized terrorist plot against Bush would be the sensation of the decade. (Remember the sensation caused by revelation of a plot against Bush the First?) I think there's a rough but appropriate proportionality going on here.

Besides, think of how it could have been spun if there actually was a media conspiracy against Bush: Portraying the attempt as a sign that Bush is widely loathed and thus at greater risk of assassination; or overanalyzing for motives and generating a sympathetic spin; or any number of other propagandistic techniques. But instead we just get reports of the "noted without comment" variety. You see signs of a conspiracy in a lack of emphasis?

Sorry, Tom, but this doesn't rise anywhere near the level of evidence of the mythical news media liberal conspiracy. Given your damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't view of the media, it's really more evidence of a tendency to paranoia on your part. You interpret everything as evidence of a conspiracy.