The objection was, in an article about Epstein's links to Clinton, the focus is Trump. That isn't true of the NYT article you linked, nor this other piece:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/nyregion/bill-clinton-jeffrey-epstein.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

As for the rest, firstly, a federal prosecutor takes precedence over a state prosecutor, so far as I know, especially in the case of crimes that can be prosecuted in federal court, as in this case. Success, or failure, in a Florida court, going by Florida law, has very little bearing to what could have happened in Federal court, where evidence from Epstein's crimes in multiple states could have been brought to bear. Acosta's failure here is his own. I'm surprised you'd fall for the smoke screen of "look, someone with less power than me also failed".

If you can show that the Democratic prosecutor also had a better case and failed to file the indictment and so on, sure, he'd deserve as much criticism. He probably still wouldn't get as much media attention, because he matters less. He isn't in a greater position of power today, and his actions have less impact on the country. It would be wildly imbalanced of the media to focus more on him than Acosta, even if you can blame him for exactly the same set of failings that can be laid at Acosta's door.

Further, despite your oh so objective statement that the position of Labor Secretary doesn't matter, the fact is, Acosta is in the Cabinet. The who-knows-what-his-name-is State prosecutor is not. The media focuses on people with greater standing That may have a cynical/ratings reason for it, but it is also pretty much part of the media's job. The higher you rise, the more under scrutiny you are, and that's as it should be.