Not all leaders do things the same way, and there might be more cause to criticize one over the others. It should be _possible_ to publish criticism for all; that doesn't mean there should be equal amounts of criticism.
Otherwise, you could have one administration that mishandles a lot of thing complain that they were treated unfairly, just because they're rightfully criticized for their shortcomings. (Which it looks like has been happening recently.)
The question is, though, what happens if one side keeps knowingly publishing baseless allegations to stir up fear and mistrust.
They should absolutely be critical selectively, based on the actual performance of that leader. The point of the criticism is to provide a deterrent to oppression and mismanagement, and a deterrent doesn't work if it's applied without regard to its target's actions.
