He wrote a piece about Parler and the storming of the Capital[0], within a week of the event that was certainly a quick take. There is absolutely no way to definitively make any sort of claim about how involved it was, especially from his position, thousands of miles away on a patio in Rio.
I find most of his pieces, to be very much 'hot take' in nature, responding to something that is currently going on.
[0]https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...
The position "on a patio in Rio" doesn't matter, as he was not doing reporting, he was doing a take. It wasn't some obscure event that needed on-the-field investigation for someone to make a take a week later (which is a lot of time in news).
It's enough that others did the reporting, or the events were plain and clearly recorded on video, or one has sources, or experience to see what's the deal behind what's reported.
Maybe you meant this for the parent commenter? I wrote in favor of Substack writers and against the "traditional outlets" superiority.
Maybe you're not reading the right posts or you just agree with the prevailing narrative in the traditional outlets?
Usually I find the people who don't see value in Substack also want the news to be reported with "moral clarity" and to eschew objectivity as a valuable aim entirely.
And besides, the mainstream outlets are barely reporting on anything anyway (where's the national news coverage of the George Floyd Autonomous Zone in Minneapolis? For the second time an American city has lost sovereignty over several blocks and the mainstream media is ignoring it) and if you do real investigative journalism into the wrong group, like Andy Ngo has (thank God for Quillette) you are branded a fascist