> real, mundane photographs appearing in the news
none of the photographs here are mundane (as ordinary, routine), neither are they real (as non artificial and unembellished, a candid portrayal of the world)
specially in all the politically themed ones, already there's some measure of "screenplay" or "choreography" from the part of the protagonists and their seconds (to the cue of their respective PR/marketing/propaganda teams, most likely) and then there's the photographer layering the biases of his own optic (he chose a particular take on a particular scene with a particular angle and lighting) and then there's the photoshopper (who cropped it in this or that way, perhaps changing the focus or the context, and edited it here and there, perhaps de/emphasising this or that actor) ...
you seem a bit awed at how some of these photos (supposedly "real") echo this or that fictional setting (film/comic/game/whatever entertainment media) without stopping a second to notice that the people producing them also knew about those fictional settings (and they knew that you knew them)
you think the one taking that photo of chavez never saw similar representations of lenin?
you think the one snapping that one of xi jinping never saw an asian mafia themed film?
come one, these photographs were taken in order to appear in "the news", that should tell you enough