I'm sure there are ways to spin this, BUT I feel this is extremely problematic in light of Bendis' claims to Forbes and his response to John Siuntres' admission that he was perplexed that Bendis was going to write Superman and not Batman. I'm starting to get a picture of how this has all come to be: DiDio and Lee (for whatever reason) return from two years away from hands-on influence on the DCU. DiDio looks at Superman's performance in Rebirth, sees that the stories have been generally well-received and sold well, but still feels there's something wrong/lacking/in need of "tweaking" as he told the NYT when it comes to Superman.
Enter Bendis. DiDio decides that Superman needs a "shake-up" to be "relevant" (he apparently thinks the character needs this constantly because it's lacking something) and then goes to Bendis and says "hey, what ideas do you have for Superman?" Bendis and DiDio are spinning it to appear as if Bendis asked for Superman, but I highly doubt it at this point and in light of these comments. Does Bendis want to write Superman? Probably, but the connection he's claiming to the character seems tenuous. "Well, I'm Jewish and from Cleveland and so were Siegel and Shuster, so I have an affinity for Superman."
I haven't read every interview with Bendis over the years, but I've read many. He always spoke about his interest in writing Batman and even that interest seemed tied to convincing Bob Wayne to sanction a DD/Batman crossover.
From InsidePulse.com:
Notice that he contradicts himself even in this interview, first saying the character has "no value in our more modern culture" and then walking back his comments and saying "no, I said I didn't think he was indentifiable."
Granted, the comment about Superman having no value is in context of his support of Ultimate Spider-Man, but the other comment seems to ring true. I think DiDio and Bendis are feeding us a narrative instead of the truth about the latter's interest in Superman. This concerns me because it's dishonest but more important, it's another instance of DiDio/DC editorial putting creators on Superman who have name-recognition but no real affinity, understanding, or love of the character. Azzarello is another example of this.
Superman doesn't need to be "shaken up," he needs creators who understand and love him to write his books consistently. Despite those who didn't care for it, it can't be argued that we had that for two years with Rebirth. If it's not broken, it doesn't need to be fixed. I'm not saying we couldn't have added another title and another voice (maybe Meltzer or Dini), but I am saying we didn't need another shake-up that will ultimately diminish the character in the long run.