This kind of article is common in various publications, including much larger ones. I have seen this sort of article about all kinds of stuff: it's written for a general audience, not people who really know much about the subject.
In this case, the guy's the "technology writer" for a publication; he's paid to write about technology. He's going to be pushing the latest stuff. You can pretty well figure he's not going to defend film; I doubt he'd defend last year's version of the iPod. These guys go from "Golly gee, wow!" to "That old thing?" in less time than most people even get around to learning how to use their new toy.
The "film is dead" statement is a hook to get people to read the article. He might believe it wholeheartedly too, and really think that camera is what finally killed it. It's his opinion, and some people will take it as gospel. He's hardly an expert, but it's in his interest to make himself sound like he really knows his stuff, so people will put stock in what he says.
When he issues a declaration that film is dead, I think most folks can see that it is his opinion; it's just a matter of how much they think his opinion is worth.
Unfortunately there will be those who do think he knows more than the next guy about photography because he gets his opinion published.
I remember many years ago reading a review of a camera with some new feature in Popular Science magazine. The allure of "new, advanced, fantastic" was clearly being put forth, but I was appalled at the low level of understanding of actual photography the writer had, and the factual errors and mischaracterizations in the article. That taught me a lot about how seriously to take any "gee whiz" article of any stripe. I began to see where writers in even the major photo magazines were infusing articles with opinion dressed up as truth, often had new model infatuation syndrome, and how they were as capable as any of the rest of us of dispensing utter horseshit.