The speed at which you're throwing up counterpoints to strawman arguments no one in this thread is making is pretty remarkable. It might be more helpful if you disengage from what you've no doubt been arguing with others on Twitter or elsewhere on CBR and try to stick with what we're trying to discuss in this thread. Making assumptions about people's motives that simply have no basis in reality isn't really the best way to have a discussion.
If you honestly think politics in superhero comics is something new, you really need to re-read Seigel & Shuster's Superman, Simon & Kirby's Captain America, and dozens upon dozens of other comics from Stan Lee, Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams and many others. There was a brief period after the Comics Code came in that superhero comics specifically avoided politics, but they've been fairly present throughout its history. There's been mixed results to be sure, but the idea that "the news" or "journalism students" are responsible for the superhero genre suddenly tackling social issues is demonstrably incorrect.
When Neal Adams and Denny O'Neil created John Stewart fifty years ago, what exactly do you think they were trying to accomplish? Were they simply checking boxes about diversity or were they trying to tell compelling stories that added a new character with a different perspective to the DCU?