The two ways to look at articles like this are at face value and/or what's the agenda.
Lewis Bush has an agenda... "I start from the standpoint that power is always problematic because its natural resting state is arbitrary and untransparent. Irrespective of the intentions of the people and institutions possessing it, this is the state to which power constantly seeks to return."
The mission of "World Press Photo" (based in Amsterdam) and its online magazine "Witness" is to promote "new thinking and new talent in visual journalism and storytelling. ... Connecting the world to the stories that matter" via "photojournalism, documentary photography, infographics, interactives, multimedia, video journalism—and things that have not yet been invented."
History is only relevant as seen in the context of today and I prefer my intake of the four W's via the still photo and text rather than video... I do tune in the news on TV (NHK & BBC), but more often than not I just listen while doing other work.
PJ, like other reporting has never been unbiased... it's definitely not the reason for a so called "decline" in still photography reporting and in the end that's not problematic, rather it's the nature of the beast best taken with a grain of salt or a glass of red. For all his dithering, Lewis Bush finally makes his point...
Who [and what] are we photographing, and why?
How are we photographing these things, and why?
Who are we photographing for?