Which is a straw-man because you could say that of pretty much any title sold in 2012 - time moves on.
At the same time, one could wonder if the incessant need since the 80s to turn every superhero into some sort of "metaphor" for adults hasn't helped create the downtown. In which case, it isn't a 'straw man' argument.
More to the point, however, as I said before, even if we concede Morrison's Batman sells well does that mean it is, per se, well done or better than some other version of Batman? Does it mean, per se, that a popular version of Batman means the writers understand Batman?
After all, to this day, the 1966 TV version of "Batman" is still quite possibly the most commercially successful version of the character in any media: Millions of first run viewers of all ages, a movie based on the show, unprecedented product tie ins, a huge cultural impact that continues to this day (see the newspaper articles that still reference "Biff" and "Zap" in articles about comic books for just one example), successful syndication and theme song that is instantly recognizable forty six years later (and has been covered by artists as diverse as the Who, the Jam, Link Wray, Iggy Pop and the Royal Philharmonic).
That success notwithstanding, is anyone here going to argue that Bill Dozier and Lorenzo Semple Jr. "understood" Batman better than Bob Kane, Bill Finger, Denny O'Neil, Steve Englehart and/or Paul Dini?