Because its all about signaling still. They get a warped perception of what a media is 'about' and fill in the gaps with "obviously it supports all my other beliefs too because the right people like it", opposite if the right likes it, and then use it when communicating not because they understand or think its accurate, but because they believe its communicating to the right people.
Much like how there's no bad tactics, only bad targets, they don't message for content, they message to be seen. Its all good as long as the right people see you, and its why you'll see them get torn down if they say things the 'wrong' people see and agree with, see Will Stancil getting chewed out for having some right wingers agree with his circular firing squad takes.
Honestly, I wouldn't have such venom toward the pretentious media literacy crowd if they were actually willing to think the implications of their fictions through to the fullest extent possible. Even former liberal darling in Harry Potter ain't immune from people seriously failing to think the implications through. Thanks in no small part to Joanne herself for continuously retconning Harry Potter and trying to make an expanded universe out of a children's book series that ran its course almost 20 years ago, but also just shitty fucking headcanons that accrued over the decades.
Here's a question that every single Potterhead I've ever spoken to fails to take into account: what if Harry had a Glock with him?
i.e. Philosopher's Stone, that scene in the Forbidden Forest where Harry's scar is throbbing while a cloaked Quirrell is menacingly moving forward toward him after drinking slain unicorn blood. Harry got rescued by Firenze the Centaur in that scene, but I'm telling you this right now: a lead bullet moving at 900 feet a second would've dispatched of Quirrell right then and there, Voldemort would've been stuck attached to a cadaver, and both Dumbledore and McGonnagall would've had to worry about which is the lesser of the evils: a child killing a professor with a Muggle firearm or the professor being possessed by the Dark Lord.
Even if you ignore that hypothetical, there are still longstanding structural problems with the way that the Wizarding World is laid out. We know that Bulgaria exists; it's the country that Viktor Krum hails from as noted in Goblet of Fire. We even have confirmation from the various Harry Potter stageplays that World Wars 1+2 happened in the Harry Potter universe. You'd think this answers one longstanding question, but it ultimately introduces another: what the hell was the Wizarding World even doing during the Great War and Dubya Dubya Two? Does that international wizarding secrecy statute prevent wizard families from helping Muggle Jews during the Shoah by using floo powder to send them over to like... Diagon Alley or a safehouse or whatever?
Furthermore, how the hell does warfare even function in Harry Potter? We know that the current canon has wizarding wars existing in parallel with muggle wars... but what if say, Muggle heavy artillery fire just so happens to blanket a battlefield where aurors and dark wizards are fighting? Does Protego (or whatever the shield charm is called) actually prevent muggle bullets from hitting them? How about RPG fire? Grenade launchers? Aerial bombardment? Actual nuclear warheads? Speaking of which... what the hell were Japanese wizards in Hiroshima and Nagasaki doing when the Enola Gay dropped the bombs? Did they try to rescue their family via apparition or floo powder? Did they try to save their skins? Did they return only to die of radiation sickness? Did they just... get vaporised like all the other civilians in the blast radius?
See, I know the answer to all these questions. The real answer is "Joanne never thought that far ahead and only kept expanding the Wizarding World horizontally while handwaving or refusing to ignore the vertical implications. Also, fans don't care about Harry Potter past the books, the movies, and maybe the Wizarding World game that came out a year or two ago." The problem is that the "media literacy" crowd never fucking allows that answer. They
must insist on making feature-length droning video essays that map the most boring, milquetoast liberal politics onto a work that frankly doesn't resemble those politics in the slightest.
If JK Rowling can flat-out say that Fenrir Greyback's weaponisation of lycanthropy is a metaphor for AIDS without unintentionally giving bigots who use bugchasing as a cudgel to browbeat gay people with it, what the hell does that tell you about the foundation they have for "media literacy?" I'll give you a hint: there ain't any fucking foundation.
