I suspect that you are underestimating the author's grasp of history, and jumping to conclusions about his point.
Well maybe, maybe not.
My conclusion(s) about his point(s) is that his line,
"how “photography” got its name: “writing with light”."
...is just as applicable to a digital sensor as it was to a metal/glass plate or some gelatin based emulsion.
Therefore when he writes,
"while photography is dead, images are everywhere"
...he is wrong. A process is dead, not photography. In fact we're talking about a myriad of processes, many of which have seen a resurgence and revival since digital photography blossomed.
It's OK to adore film and despise digital, that's anybody's prerogative, but to go on to claim that digital capture and/or retouching are not photography is misguided (or intentionally inflammatory). Retouching has been part of photography from practically day-dot (my original point), and digital capture is quite clearly "writing with light."
Of the introduction of Photoshop he writes,
"Photography’s tight bond with reality had been broken"
It was broken over 150 years ago. They were compositing multiple images with Calotypes - the first process that granted multiple copies - quite happily back then.
His whole argument about the lack of physicality of the digital medium fails when he writes,
"The eloquence of a single jewel like 5×7 contact print has turned into the un-nuanced vulgarity of 30 x 40 tack sharp Giclee prints"
This perspective and use of language to express it is found throughout this essay, and strongly suggests (to me anyway) that rationality and objectivity are not the authors strong suits when it comes to the topic in hand.
Personally, I'd rather read the dictionary...
noun [ mass noun ]
the art or practice of taking and processing photographs."
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally."