To me it feels like the opposite. They're expected to be team players. An example were David Sirota's International Business Times articles Clinton[1] and Trum

To me it feels like the opposite. They're expected to be team players. An example were David Sirota's International Business Times articles Clinton[1] and Trump[2]. While head of the state department (which runs weapons deals), Clinton approved arms deals to controversial countries after they donated to the Clinton Foundation. This reporting was widely attacked online, often by other journalists. The article was very detailed and well documented. Later he wrote another equally detailed article about how Trump ripped off investors through chicanery and the article was widely applauded by the same audience. It was the same journalist doing the same level of investigation with the same rigor, treated completely differently by the same audience. In both cases it seems like the popular reception was not based on facts at all, in either direction! The reaction was largely based on which 'team' it supported. 1- https://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187 https://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapon... 2- https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/how-donald-trump-used-fine-print-make-it-harder-sue-wall-street-fraud-2440890 https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/how-donald-trump-u...