From Wikipedia:
During the Cold War, lack of reliable information about the country forced Western analysts to "read between the lines" and to use the tiniest tidbits, such as the removal of portraits, the rearranging of chairs, positions at the reviewing stand for parades in Red Square, the choice of capital or small initial letters in phrases such as "First Secretary", the arrangement of articles on the pages of the party newspaper "Pravda" and other indirect signs to try to understand what was happening in internal Soviet politics.
I know that Soviet scholars & journalists at the time tried to read these signals. What I want to know was, were they ever right? Or was it all some kind of political science mysticism?
Just to clarify: your quote seems to be saying that Western analysts were the ones doing these deep readings, but your question is about Soviet journalisms. Do you mean Western journalists that covered the Kremlin/USSR, or do you mean journalists within the USSR?
It was 'political science mysticism', and in everything I have ever read, which ever touched on the concept of 'Krelimology' was doing so to make a point of how ignorant everyone was, not how astute they were. I think you knew the answer to this question as well, however fascinating a window it is into the tension and suspicion of the times.
This is the case whether referring to Western or Soviet journalists/analysts. The era was overwhelmingly marked by lack of information and faulty assumptions, not accurate perceptions.