More akin to not having code reviews in opinion. If the process isn't there you're just not picking up certain issues.

If the Ars Technica editorial process requires assuming reporters don't fabricate quotes, then their process is inadequate. That's like a software company letting junior engineers release directly to production with just a spellcheck and no real process to catch errors. Major publications like The New Yorker, The Atlantic, etc. have a dedicated fact-checking department that is part of the process and needs to give the ok before any article is published. Why is their process so deficient by comparison? Why wasn't there any fact checking?

The “system” should make it difficult to make mistakes.

But more importantly, why can’t both be at fault?

Having fact checkers review every articles you publish is a very low bar (as in you should not be in the business of publishing news if you can’t do it effectively).

As someone who worked as a newspaper copy editor for the first third of my career, "assume that the author is lying to you" was the entire job.

A lapse in that non-hypothetically left me responsible, and legally liable, in situations like this.