We've been doing this the hard way for years. It doesn't take as long as you'd think - it's not that the process is difficult, it's that it's offensive - "if you need that line, go record that guy saying that line, ass." "But we don't have tyyyyyyymmmmmeeeeeeUHHHHHH!" "I will literally take an iPhone recording." "Why are you being so difffffffficulllllllllltUHHHHHHHH!*" I think it's indicative of Adobe that they're simplifying a process that nobody needs rather than, oh, coming out with an audio editor that doesn't suck. Because the people that need this are Youtubers that didn't get that tedious c-grade celebrity saying that thing they needed for that tedious Youtube video and they don't have the skills to edit around their failure. Real toys with a real function that accomplishes real task has been available for a decade.
I don't doubt that there's tools with a lot more utility than Adobe's software provides when it comes to editing vocal takes and such, like the one you linked. And like you said, it's not really that bad of a process to do manually. At least not from the limited experience I've had of it. The main interest I had in what Adobe showed was the ability to type in new words and phrases that a person hasn't actually said and the software's ability to produce a somewhat realistic sounding take. That's the cool part for me, vs. the basic vocal adjustment capability.
That's because Adobe has had this latent voice recognition thing that they've been trying to do for a while so they can tag flash videos. It's why they came out with Story so they'd increase their corpus. My point is that the underlying technology Adobe is leveraging has been available for years from far better vendors using far better tools, it's just that nobody but Adobe would come up with a "let's fake news clippings" use for it.