I think it is a long-term positive, though we are in a period of change and there are some pains associated with it. Buckle in, this is going to be a long post.
1. The big names in hunting media are doing a better job of teaching ethical hunting, and showing that there is more to a hunt than the trophy shot. I've got to hand it to Meateater - they are really the poster child for making hunting about more than the rack on the wall. They have huge reach and I appreciate the work that they've done. The fact that they managed to get on Netflix means that they have an absurd amount of reach. I'm comfortable with them being the face of hunting, especially when considering the alternatives that we had previously (which, frankly, were embarrassing). The only reason that hunting didn't get hated out of existence is that the shows were on an obscure channel where the average Joe didn't really find them.
I feel like Meateater alone has prolonged the political life of hunting by at least a generation. The more advocates we have (including those that do not hunt but have a positive view of it) the easier it will be to keep the sport alive.
2. Based on my anecdotal evidence, the new hunters tend to be more respectful of the land, and safer hunters. There are some people that I will not hunt with because they are not safe. Very few of them are new to hunting. It seems that there is a strain of "this is how my family has always done this so I don't need to follow the rules." New hunters are coachable and tend to be cognizant of the fact that they are toting around a lethal weapon. A greater percentage of new hunters are in it for the meat or the experience than they are the trophy at the end. I think that competition for the biggest rack can drive people to behaving poorly. As part of hunting media, we see it as our responsibility to help people get out in the field in a safe and respectful fashion.
3. The new hunters tend to look less like me, and come from a variety of backgrounds. This is helping break the stereotype of hunters as racist rednecks (which is a hard image to fight for). Hunting is a way to introduce guns and shooting sports to a group of people who may have never thought about shooting a gun before. I think this helps us in the war of public opinion against anti-hunters and overreaching gun control.
4. The current system has flaws, and the increased numbers are just bringing them to the forefront. Preference point draw systems are a racket (this could be an entire post by itself - let's just say I would be happy to give up my points to move to a system that doesn't lock out those who didn't happen to be born to a hunting family). There are states where new hunters will literally never live long enough to draw a premier tag, yet newcomers are still going hunting. They tend to congregate in places that have opportunity, usually easy to draw or OTC tags on public land. As
@VikingsGuy said, they have the privilege to recreate on the land just as we do. If a newbie is hiking 5 miles in to your favorite back woods hunting spot, it seems like they have discovered a real passion - I know plenty of longtime hunters that won't go more than a quarter mile from the truck. I can't find issue with someone putting in the work to try and find success. I think part of why hunting was suffering not long ago is that the barrier to entry was too high. Hunting media has helped get them over that initial hump. It is my personal opinion that anyone who has the desire and drive to go hunting should have the opportunity to do so.
5. Part of the crowding issue is due to people losing access to private land. I don't have any stats, but I've heard a number of stories where this has happened. My gut feeling is that this is happening more as big corporations take over smaller plots of land, or as owners realize that they can make money off of leasing land. The hunters who weren't invested will probably quit, but those that are will continue to hunt, likely moving to public land where they can get access.
6. We are still far from the days of overhunting animals. We have structures in place to help conserve populations (though as I mentioned earlier, I feel they could be improved). At the same time, we have populations that could stand to have significantly more hunting pressure (thinking of the Light Goose Conservation Order, or even overpopulated deer in some areas of the east coast). If we have sustained interest in hunting, then over time we might see some OTC units move to limited entry. This happened for Oregon's archery elk seasons this past year. I'm actually okay with this as it means we are still listening to our biologists.
7. As more people get in to hunting, more money goes towards conservation, and land managers have better justification to keeping it open to the public and relatively undisturbed. I think that three long-term threats to hunting will be loss of access, a change in political opinion, and issues with climate change (right now it is looking like droughts are hitting some places hard, but this can be anything from wildfires to exceptionally hard winters). If we have better footing for public access, I only see that as a benefit to hunting.
With all of these together, I think that hunting as a sport is the healthiest it has been in some time. We're doing a better job at getting people outdoors in a responsible fashion. We're winning advocates that we hopefully can keep on our side. We're helping to fund programs that will benefit hunters long-term. The tradeoff is that certain places are getting more use. We have mechanisms in place to prevent the worst impacts of overuse. I don't think hunting media is responsible for 100% of these changes, but I do believe it has had an overall net benefit.
hunters out there. I realize that everyone in this country deserves their chance to chase deer in MT or antelope in WY or whatever you like to do. Personally a NV ram tag would be a dream come true for me but, I realize I would have to wait my turn for it… maybe 20 years or more. 
