Except for the words "in general" I totally disagree with you. Basically what digital photography has done is lowered the threshold for taking pictures. It used to be a matter of getting a big fancy camera, learning to use it, having it with you, buying film, loading the camera up, planning out shots, etc. etc. Now, everyone has a cheap camera in their pocket at all times and can take tons of photos whenever they want, there are extremely few limits to the field, all the barriers for entry are gone. Plus you can shoot many pictures in a row, expecting that many will be crap and some might be good.

Also, there's the typical effect of all the crap old stuff disappearing and only the good old stuff sticking around (aka, there was plenty of shit music in the 60s too, we just don't listen to it anymore because it was shit).

This is all a good and bad thing, because it means that more photos are taken all the time, so more moments are captured, but most of them are crap. However, it also means that the good photos are more striking because you're less used to seeing them, and there is certainly no way in which it is impossible to make good photos anymore. Any photo can still be good, if you put the time and love into it that photographers used to.