I did not read every word, no. I read enough to know the science writer for that publication was sloppy, and therefore suspect. ... It's quite possible he didn't understand the scientist (and science) he was trying to report on. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened in lay-media. I don't trust that he really understood Zurek's paper(s), and he didn't link to them that I could see.

The article begins with a link to Zurek's book:
'Decoherence and Quantum Darwinism
From Quantum Foundations to Classical Reality'
by Wojciech Hubert Zurek, Los Alamos National Laboratory
cambridge.org - Decoherence and quantum darwinism

As for the author, Philip Ball, he's prolific, with 28 books on a variety of topics under his belt, many related in one way or another to science.
philipball.co.uk: Books by Philip Ball - Philip Ball
One of Ball's books is entitled "BEYOND WEIRD: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Quantum Physics Is Different".
It's been named Physics World 2018 Book of the Year; an Economist Book of the Year; a Prospect Book of the Year.
amazon.co.uk - Beyond Weird Philip Ball
‘Gorgeously lucid … takes us to the edge of contemporary theorizing about the foundations of quantum mechanics. Easily the best book I’ve read on the subject.' Washington Post
'A clear and deeply researched account of what’s known about the quantum laws of nature, and how to think about what they might really mean.' Nature

So Ball has been onto this for many years.

As for myself, I make no claim to expertise in the realm of physics. I obtained a bachelor of arts degree with a major in philosophy in 1965. I have, however, sought to stay abreast of scientific developments throughout my adult life, especially regarding Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity, with a particular focus on the long-standing chasm of understanding between these two that prompted even Einstein to struggle until his death in 1955 with what he referred to as "spooky action at a distance". For decades this mystery prompted quantum physicists to admonish their peers and students to just "keep your head down and calculate".

From the article: Starting in the 1970s, [Zurek] and the physicist H. Dieter Zeh looked closely at what quantum theory itself tells us about measurements [decoherence and entanglement]. (This might have happened much sooner if researchers had not been discouraged for decades from asking questions about these foundational but unresolved issues in the theory, on the grounds that it was all just pointless philosophy.)

What I see today is a movement toward a philosophical – that is, macroscopically comprehensible – approach to this problem that's been strangling interest in quantum theory in recent years. I want to understand what Zurek is doing his best to explicate. I have some fundamental ideas about the nature of the experience of existence, but I won't be satisfied with them until they've been scientifically verified. I'd be delighted to engage with anyone sharing similar interests who's willing to explore available information with an open mind.

Tom