I'm not seeing anything potentially libelous in this proposal (assuming that the OP claims are not purely made up), as truth can't be libel.

I think he was commenting on the generational trend. There is naturally going to be a shift when two billion new users enter a media landscape that was previously only occupied by a few professional firms. In addition, I think it would be hard for an intellectually honest person to deny that in the current age of click bait news that agencies of all stripes are running articles with less corroborating evidence than they would have in the past so as to be the first ones to the scoop. Unfortunately, Russian facebook trolls have set the new burden of proof for online kangaroo courts, and it is not much.

Only the younger generations have access to new technology?

No, but people's ways of thinking are influenced by how the world worked throughout their lives, with a lasting influence from when they were young.

Public shaming as an immediate reaction is fairly recent in the short history of the internet. The technology supported it easily in the 90s (or even late 80s using newsgroups), but it didn't become a common practice right away. Retweeting and hashtags seem to have turbocharged public shaming.

The social norms of my generation (49 yo, in California) required that one try to settle business disputes directly between the parties before resorting to public shaming. I still abide by that norm, even though I recognize that many people think differently. Which way is ultimately better for society isn't clear yet.