Indeed, read the last clause rather carefully. Again, the behavior of measurement devices themselves should be reducible to more fundamental physics, and so fundamental physics should not make reference to macroscopic objects like measurement devices in its model of the physical world. He wasn't after a word to replace measurement, this was not a semantic point. He was after a physical theory and a rigorous mathematical accounting of what is going on. Bell was pretty much a fan of any speculative model which made some attempt at replacing measurement with some well-defined physical process.

For example, he spoke positively of Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory, which was a spontaneous collapse theory, because the fact you measure classical particles is predicted mathematically by the model itself as it describes particles as evolving according to the quantum state but stochastically "collapsing" back into classical particles after a brief amount of time. The model did not make reference to measurement as a fundamental concept, but could instead explain using its fundamental concepts why you measure what you do, and so Bell gave talks promoting it and praising it.

Compare that to the comic where the professor just says "it's about measurement, not about consciousness." GRW theory said, "it's about spontaneous collapse, not about consciousness." The "answer" is explicitly a physical process that is well-defined mathematically in the model. Bell spoke positively of the model not necessarily because he believed it was correct, but that the authors clearly understood that there was a "measurement problem" and were trying at potential solutions to it.

Another example was pilot wave theory. Pilot wave theory got rid of the transition between the quantum world and the classical world entirely by just presupposing that both exist side-by-side and that the quantum state merely plays a role in influencing the trajectories of classical particles. Bell also liked this because it again no longer had to reference measurement devices as a fundamental concept (as there was no transition from quantum to classical at measurement) and could instead explain why you measure particles where you do with the specific statistics you measure. He had promoted this theory as well and wrote papers on it, one where he even criticizes other physicists for ignoring it when he saw it as groundbreaking.

Bell was pretty much in favor of literally anything that wasn't of the form (1) there's a quantum state → (2) you measure it → (3) a miracle happens → (4) you get classical results. He hated this form because #3 is left entirely ambiguous and so you have to treat measurement as a fundamental concept as the thing which transforms #2 to #4, but there is no explanation provided as to how this actually occurs in physical reality. He wanted a physical model where the behavior of the measurement device itself could be captured by the theory. This was a point about physics, physical models and physical explanations of the world, not a point about semantics.