Cartooning involves a lot more ability to editorialize. Even if the words are the same, subtle alterations in depictions can convey what the cartoonist wants.
In addition, in a world of StableDifffusion and AI generated graphics, are we really wanting to train teens to get their news via (human for now) generated depictions of current events?
A charitable take is that they want to be honest without disillusioning kids. They want kids to feel included in understanding current events, without making the world seem utterly hopeless (and thus inflicting a nihilistic world view).
An uncharitable take is that they are grooming activists. They don't want it to be too positive so kids feel an urge to right some wrong, and they don't want it too depressing so they think there's still some agency to be advocated for.
Like writing, framing a picture, or whatever that is not being there.
Photos look much realer than most drawings/paintings so people assume what they're depicting must be real. Since the technology was new, most people just believed it, and so the Nazis could sell them anything as the truth.
I suppose such magazines exist in every country?