The article has little statements sprinkled throughout that are easily used to undermine trust in an election. Sometimes the articles do not need to promote the idea themselves, but the larger manipulation machine does better when they can point to more "evidence" of "hackable" machines.
At the same time, I do not disagree with the absurd waste. This is why I shared a link to an interesting project that can help with this. Paper only voting, with human tallies, is far more expensive than machine tallying and also more prone to error.