I love these types of "media literacy" arguments that expose how the arguer doesn't actually understand art.
Imagine buying a Star Wars Millennium Falcon Lego set. The box and instructions clearly say: "Build the spaceship". That's the author's intent - Alan Moore saying "Rorschach is supposed to be a dangerous, right-wing nutcase", for example.
But you dump out all the pieces and build a working catapult instead. It's clever, it launches stuff, it's fun, and it actually holds together better than the official model. Now someone like Eren walks in and says "You're playing with it wrong! The box says it's supposed to be the Millennium Falcon! You're Lego-illiterate"
This is exactly what the "media literacy" retort crowd does.
With Rorschach in Watchmen, Moore built a character with unbreakable moral conviction, a tragic backstory, raw honesty, and a powerful "never compromise" ethos. Those are strong Lego pieces. Many readers took those pieces and built something different: a principled hero who refuses to bend in a corrupt, relativistic world. That "catapult" turned out to be more popular, more quoted, and more culturally alive than Moore's intended critique.
The official "Rorschach is a bad fascist" model feels wobbly to a lot of people. It needs constant external explanations ("Moore said he's crazy!") to hold up. The catapult doesn't. It stands on its own.
True media literacy isn't blindly following the instructions on the box. It's understanding the pieces so well that you can build something meaningful with them - even if it's not what the designer planned. Great art gives your rich bricks that allow multiple strong builds. Yelling "You're reading it wrong!" just because people prefer the catapult reveals that the official model wasn't self-sufficient on its own.
Art isn't a finished toy you're only allowed to display one way. It's a box of pieces meant for interaction and play. The audience gets to build.
If you don't understand this, you don't understand what art is.