There are really two "senses" to what one means when one talks about the "political" in a modern day cultural sense. There is one sense where "political," directly refers to the polis, the city, and the totality of its affairs. When we are using this sense of "political," we are referring to class conflict, the conflict between sexes, other gender-based conflict, justice issues, equity issues, the broad range of social and economic problems, etc. In the way that the "polis" is almost a stand-in for our understanding of local civilization, so too is "political" anything that pertains to the structure, origin, and operation of the local civilization. I am assuming this is what Amuro means when he/she/they discuss all media covering social issues and therefore being political.
There is another "sense" to the word "political" which does not refer to the affairs of the polis, but instead refers to actually being involved in the political process or discourse (e.g. When people say they aren't political. They are a member of the polis, so of course they are political in a descriptive sense, but they are not political in the involvement or discourse sense). It is important to note that while the overwhelming majority of media focuses on some social issues, the majority of media does not take a firm position on the major social issues dividing a population. Some of them do, but it is certainly not a rule by any stretch of the imagination. In this way, people are complaining that a piece of media, rather than discussing alternative views on sociopolitical issues, is taking an active, affirmative decision in a contentious cultural and political divide. People have political opinions which govern how they live their lives. In the overwhelming majority of cases, these political opinions differ from my own. But if I involve myself in their debate and stake out a particular position, I shouldn't be surprised if people then accuse me of being functionally political because I am taking an active position on an essentially contested issue. Whether or not it should be contested is not my concern, but it is. If I am releasing a product to an audience, and I stake out positions which are in favor of the political views of one part of the audience, but not the other part (where the percentage divide indicates both parties are of significant size/critical mass), then I am actively staking out a position against the worldview of a part of my customer base. Maybe it's justified, but it's still a very specific, very active statement on its own which is separate from other works in history talking about the social issues of their day and age.
