The way I think about it is that there is no difference in how well they are written, researched, reasoned etc, just that "positive" articles when a team is playing well just aren't that interesting. "Negative" articles are much more worthy of discussion and worthy of a deeper look, which will generally lead to more thorough critiques of everything about the article. Those articles are interesting to critique in the same way that it is interesting to critique a team that is playing above what would be expected. The flip side, in my opinion, is that the last four years (at least the last two) probably worked in reverse. So many articles pointing out the flaws of a bad team probably became tiresome and generated less of a deeper look. Articles that tried to spin "positive" would have been worthy of more discussion and a more thorough critique of the specifics written in the article. Doubtful they were worse written, reasoned or researched.