Right, but perhaps I should rephrase:
How are we as news-consumers worse off?
As for the jobs argument: we have been through that discussion in the 80s when computer automation and robotics emerged, but I can not honestly say that "we" as a whole are any worse off because of the jobs that were destroyed, changed, and created as a result of that automation...
Again, i was talking big-picture, not just photographers or news-comsumers.
As for emerging technologies, it is worth noting that it is only one factor that shapes the current crisis. It is also worth noting that the current crisis appears to be different in nature than the cyclical ones in the recent past. It is significantly longer, affecting much broader spectrum (vs. single technological disruption), has not reached even a half of most pre-crisis indicators, and appears to be systemic, rather than cyclical. Since it has not recovered even a half of what's been lost, one can argue we are still worse off. Perhaps in the longer run (and it has already been the longest one, or one of), we might be better off, but, as we know, in the long run we are all dead.
EDIT: Come to think of it, aren't we, as news-consumers, indeed going to be worse-off with the amateurish iPhone videos and photographs?
Not if we accept the new-generation definition of photography, which equates it with Instagram.