This is plainly rubbish. Just because it looks like a painting, doesn't mean it is art. Such stupidity is typical of those who pick over photojournalism's entrails claiming they can see some signs of life. The boundaries between these definitions are necessarily blurred. I suspect there is no such thing as a good photograph, only good photography, that is photography which fits its purpose and does so with knobs on.
Bad photography is everywhere of course.
For cheek and invention you can't beat a British tabloid. For exciting action pictures of a consistently high quality, the sports pages have never looked so well. The Mail's picture of the first cloned human embryo. The Guardian showing us bombs exploding over Belgrade just a few days after it showed us a Jackson Pollock painting looking so very much the same. Here are the pictures that dizzy the cranium.