In the past, yes, but I mean what he writes about now. E.g. he wrote about Elon Musk today yet is just getting his information from other articles or Twitter. At that point it's just hearsay.
So say a science writer reviews peer-reviewed literature to write about some technology or technological claim (let's say CRISPR) but has done none of that direct research themselves...are you saying they are just writing hearsay?
Now maybe you can qualm about where he gets his information and how reputable it is, but I think your standard for journalism differs from most.
That's not a prerequisite to journalism, though I guess that can be your standard for it. Musk is notoriously media-hostile, which means it's often very difficult to get direct quotes or responses from him on a story that doesn't try to flatter him. By your standard, that'd mean Musk has unilateral ability to discredit journalism by just not participating.
He has been offering analysis and commentary on the process since the beginning, floating theories for various parties’ positions and debunking silly ideas that were being taken seriously at the time.
Now maybe you can qualm about where he gets his information and how reputable it is, but I think your standard for journalism differs from most.