"Vastly superior player?" Come on now. I'm not even a Murray fan, but what a ridiculous statement. Obviously on Clay Djokovic has a huge advantage, but on Grass Murray has the edge, and on Hard Court it is pretty 50-50 (outside of Australia). Does Djokovic have a more aesthetically pleasing game? Yes. But Murray is every bit as talented as the Djoker, and they should be the main threats to win any event not on Clay for the next 4-5 years.
I'm just guessing here but it is possible Djokovic isn't as liked as much, because quite frankly he made a not so great impression on the tour with the constant "injuries" and retirements for his first few years (before 2011). On the court he is a bit obnoxious as well (over-the-top fist pumps and screams); off the court he is a great personality and spokesman for the game of tennis. He has always been in the shadow of Federer and Nadal. So there are a few things going against him, but the media certainly doesn't hate the guy. He has been the best player since 2011, and I haven't seen too many media outlets try to argue otherwise. He is the overwhelming #1 - unless Nadal can produce off the dirt, and unless Murray can be a bit more consistent, then he will remain #1 for quite some time.
Lastly I really don't understand the "opponent played like shit" argument. Murray is a prime example of a player that causes other players to play badly (or worse than usual) against him. Should Nadal be discredited for all the times Fed "played like shit" against him? Of course not. Give the man some respect. Again, I am not even a Murray fan, but I am happy to see him succeed considering the absurd amount of pressure placed on him.
Kind of funny that with 2 Grand Slams and Olympic Gold (and another GS Final), Murray isn't even close to overtaking Novak at #1. If the media really disliked Novak as some of you are claiming, where are all of the articles about how that is an outrage?