It simply means that we no longer have measuring instruments who are used to draw accurate representation of the scene but seed samplers who are used to generate a representation of the scene, not necessarily accurately but artistically. Accuracy used to be the metric but someone figured out that most people are not after accuracy.
IMHO it's not fundamentally evil, it's just that it's not the thing we are used to. Wouldn't have caused a confusion if they used some other word instead of photograph.
Cameras have never, ever been "accurate". It is not technologically possible to create a photograph that is "accurate". Cameras have always made big tradeoffs to output something that actually looks good to humans.
Well, no, it's not perfectly possible to recreate a singular human vision system and capture and reproduce imagery to match that.
But actually, we have lots of excellent, well-researched and proven standards for accuracy in imaging. Cameras generally target those standards, certainly professional ones. Many cameras - quite clearly - can produce very accurate photographs.
The more worrying trend is that of pervasive post-processing, where we depart from reality and entertain aesthetics.
Most modern cameras have noise reduction, stabilisation, the ability to combine multiple exposures and track moving targets. They might not push the envelope as much as a cellphone, but they’re only a few years behind.
IMHO it's not fundamentally evil, it's just that it's not the thing we are used to. Wouldn't have caused a confusion if they used some other word instead of photograph.