The point is to treat the whole of an organized body as though it’s entirely at the whims of its leader. When the leader is of a friendly disposition it’s intended to make all of the victories and accomplishments bolster public support for the leader. When it’s an unfriendly character, it’s for the opposite.
When Russia fails, media can put their blame on Putin and greatly simplify things for their audience. Rather than having to explain who generals and theorists are, thereby keeping their readers from gaining a more nuanced view of the event.
The media would rather people saw world events from a ‘great figures’ perspective, rather than a collective one. And they’d rather let historians pick up the slack on providing nuance on issues after the public has already gained a bias in the favour of the media.
By only listing Putin, Xi, the Kims, ETC. while talking about world events, they mean to give us a world view wherein every issue in the country is directly related to them and their interactions. To their view, if you removed that singular figure you’d remove the only barrier to “peace”. And the more liberals believe that, the louder they’ll support colour revolutions and wars of imperialism against NATO’s enemies.
When the leader is of a friendly disposition it’s intended to make all of the victories and accomplishments bolster public support for the leader. When it’s an unfriendly character, it’s for the opposite.
When it’s a friendly character but something bad happens, they’ll blame the empowered individuals under them (generals, politicians, etc.). And when it’s an unfriendly one, when something good happens it’s anyone but the great leader’s doing.
As an example, when abortion was banned in the US media started talking about the Supreme court, never mentioning Biden. But in the transverse, if abortion was banned in China media would be mentioning Xi every article.
Yes, it’s called “Good Tsar syndrome”, because how often and successfully it was used by the Romanov dynasty (others did it too all the time, but they are the most spectacular, long time and recorded case). Bloody Nicky failed miserably at this though and that added to his demise.
Very well put. But is this really done at the level of MSM? I think that policians themselves already strive to achieve this effect. Even when reading or listening to politicians it is generally difficult for me to figure out who the theoreticians are, and what specific theoretical framework is used to justify a specific policy. I don’t often see politicians giving credit or providing a thorough bibliography. But I might just not be looking in the right places. Do you know where I can find the theoretical framework that explains the contemporary actions of Putin’s team and allies? Who are the theoreticians that work closely with Putin? I am very interested.
like others have said, they’ve always done this.
The point is to treat the whole of an organized body as though it’s entirely at the whims of its leader. When the leader is of a friendly disposition it’s intended to make all of the victories and accomplishments bolster public support for the leader. When it’s an unfriendly character, it’s for the opposite.
When Russia fails, media can put their blame on Putin and greatly simplify things for their audience. Rather than having to explain who generals and theorists are, thereby keeping their readers from gaining a more nuanced view of the event.
The media would rather people saw world events from a ‘great figures’ perspective, rather than a collective one. And they’d rather let historians pick up the slack on providing nuance on issues after the public has already gained a bias in the favour of the media.
By only listing Putin, Xi, the Kims, ETC. while talking about world events, they mean to give us a world view wherein every issue in the country is directly related to them and their interactions. To their view, if you removed that singular figure you’d remove the only barrier to “peace”. And the more liberals believe that, the louder they’ll support colour revolutions and wars of imperialism against NATO’s enemies.
I want to add to this point;
When it’s a friendly character but something bad happens, they’ll blame the empowered individuals under them (generals, politicians, etc.). And when it’s an unfriendly one, when something good happens it’s anyone but the great leader’s doing.
As an example, when abortion was banned in the US media started talking about the Supreme court, never mentioning Biden. But in the transverse, if abortion was banned in China media would be mentioning Xi every article.
Yes, it’s called “Good Tsar syndrome”, because how often and successfully it was used by the Romanov dynasty (others did it too all the time, but they are the most spectacular, long time and recorded case). Bloody Nicky failed miserably at this though and that added to his demise.
Very well put. But is this really done at the level of MSM? I think that policians themselves already strive to achieve this effect. Even when reading or listening to politicians it is generally difficult for me to figure out who the theoreticians are, and what specific theoretical framework is used to justify a specific policy. I don’t often see politicians giving credit or providing a thorough bibliography. But I might just not be looking in the right places. Do you know where I can find the theoretical framework that explains the contemporary actions of Putin’s team and allies? Who are the theoreticians that work closely with Putin? I am very interested.