No, we didn't get a news report on the number of dead or injured. We didn't see Clark pulling people out of the rubble. I don't really see a need for it. What would be the point? To demonstrate that, what, he's a good guy? I mean, I don't get the obsession with the idea that the destruction had to be acknowledged.
Because that's what Superman is, how he's always been portrayed, and no other interpretation or structuring of the character's learning curve regarding reckless behavior or power usage could possibly be valid.
I guess since it has been done in other films, and since it could have been done, the film not doing it here is a failure somehow.
That, or people really just cannot use their imaginations, or really need the obvious pointed out to them. To me, the fact that Superman was saving lives by stopping Zod was obvious. The destruction was obvious. The threat was obvious. The likely loss of life was obvious. And I think Superman mourned all of it after killing Zod. But I guess he needs to think everything is his fault or something at the end of the movie.