A case made for why GNs can be great for reading instruction that's spoiled by mention of a propaganda item

Education Week's writing about why graphic novels can be good for reading instruction assignments. There are some interesting points made, but towards the end, the impact is seriously dampened by the mere mention of a propaganda item that distorted history for woke political brownie points:

If the goal is for them to be familiar with the story or examine themes, they can read the graphic novel version. Some Recommendations include Brave New World: A Graphic Novel by Fred Fordham, Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation by David Polonsky and Ari Folman, Romeo and Juliet and The Odyssey by Gareth Hinds, George Orwell’s 1984 by Matyas Namai, and Bea Wolf by Zach Weinersmith.

Well gee, this certainly isn't doing any favors by citing leftist animator Folman's questionable GN about Anne Frank as though that's perfect for schools and education. What's the columnist thinking? I'm sorry, but that spoils this whole essay, when there's bound to be other, more historically accurate GNs about Frank and other WW2 Holocaust-related subjects around. Even if the subject is obviously adult to the point where parental guidance would be needed, that Folman's GN exploits the misfortune of a young girl for the sake of LGBT propaganda and other forced smut ruins everything.

One of the worst problems with mainstream news writers like the one who wrote the essay for Education Week is that they always go almost entirely with the easiest of choices and examples, and never do deeper research to see if there's anything more challenging that could be brought up instead. Anybody who's not willing to sit back and determine if a comic like Folman's really makes the best recommendation for educational purposes has no business being in the school management system.