The article proposes a concrete solution to a problem for media makers: if you need to protect your files, here is a tool you can use, and here is how to use it.
Your response is 'I don't trust this tool'.
The next question from the target audience would then be: 'OK, so what are we supposed to use?'
What would be your response?
Keep in mind, these are users most likely running Mac or Windows to do various media production tasks. Telling them to fire up your pet distro of choice and set up LUKS is not a pragmatic solution.
I don't think saying "be aware of the trust issues" is necessarily dismissing VeraCrypt. OP's point is that you need to keep that in mind when making a decision. The idea that keeping yourself secure is as simple as using a tool is a massive mistake, it's a process. With physical security, we've largely internalized this process, but digital security is something lots of people still don't understand.
But to answer your question, I think that the most reliable form of file encryption remains, probably uninterestingly, GPG. It's not easy and it's not perfect, lacking several advantages of block based tools like VeraCrypt, but it's well tested and publicly vetted. If you are working alone BitLocker and File Vault are both good options for solo use.
I think there is some muddling of the issues at hand here.
Yes, security is a process and involves situation-specific threat modeling, risk assessment, and behavioral conditioning. It is not just a 'here use %foo' band-aid. I don't think anyone here is disputing this.
But that is not the issue here. The issue is that once you've developed your personalised threat model, the issue of which specific tools to use is a very real one. OP has cast ad hominem FUD on VC, and provided no reasonable alternative, leaving someone to ask 'OK, if VC is not trustworthy, what is?' Security is a holistic process, yes, but that by definition includes tools alongside a valid threat model.
So back to the matter at hand: GPG does not provide the functionality that VC does (no FDE, no deniability), and BitLocker and File Vault are closed-source toolkits, are you really proposing them as viable trustworthy alternatives to VC? Which brings us back full circle to the original issue: if VC is deemed not trustworthy by OP, what is a user to use instead?
Is the article proposing that you need an open source FDE solution with deniability? Considering it refers to using Disk Utility as an option if everyone is on MacOS, then I don't think that's what it is going for. It also assumes that these users are using Windows/MacOS, so the need for open source tools doesn't seem to be a primary concern for this organization. I don't personally have a lot of problems with VeraCrypt, but I think most people this article is aimed at would be well served by File Vault and Bit Locker since we have no reasons not to trust those organizations and some reasons to believe they have put their money where their mouth is when it comes to file encryption.
But yes, if what you want is open source FDE with deniability, and cross platform support (not sure why you need cross platform support for FDE) then VeraCrypt is your tool.
Your response is 'I don't trust this tool'.
The next question from the target audience would then be: 'OK, so what are we supposed to use?'
What would be your response?
Keep in mind, these are users most likely running Mac or Windows to do various media production tasks. Telling them to fire up your pet distro of choice and set up LUKS is not a pragmatic solution.