Why people say, Gukesh won because of blunder?

I don’t get why people focus on Gukesh winning *because* of a blunder rather than highlighting just how badly Ding blundered in the first place. And let’s not forget—none of the Indian reporters stepped up when a few of the old Russian hogs said that 'Chess is over as we know it,' just because they couldn’t handle an 18-year-old winning. Apparently, according to them, Gukesh’s victory would only count if he delivered a picture-perfect checkmate. What’s even weirder is the lack of discussion about Ding’s underwhelming performance while Gukesh is being unfairly criticized for no reason. Why the double standard?