Parts of what he says are true, but, amusingly, it's the things he's _not_saying that are interesting. 2007 was the beginning of the global financial crisis, so, yes, pretty much everything fell off the cliff at that point. Direct injection is not the be-all and end-all for injection tech where carbon and other buildups can result in decreased power. It's fine if you own a car from new, and only keep it a while, but the long haul after that means higher maintenance costs (and more expensive injectors) or possible catastrophic failure.
The comparing the CR-V to the Kia is a cute jab, but turbo always has higher power at lower revs due to the mechanism of operation, the CR-V is still NA and does damn well because of that.
Honda
does need to move further forward, the K-series should probably have not run for as long as they did (and def. not in the FN). Something new should have occurred then (like A-VTEC perhaps?). Others moved forward, Multi-air, VANOS, etc. and Honda should have pulled something interesting out of the bag at that point.
He also makes claims about Honda shipping journalists to various locations without acting as if this same activity occurs for every other manufacturer.
So, sure, he makes some good points, but I think he's really just stirring the pot for amusement's sake, which is a bit harsh.