How is this different from murder?
To establish depraved indifference you would have differentiate malice apart from incompetence which likely comes down to whether the individual should have known better for the position they are paid according to a common person standard.
I can see arguments either way. The team represents federal executive police and so clearly they should have known better and the statement forms malicious intent. On the other hand Covid is so contagious that in practice such utterances are irrespective to reality as the gross incompetence formed from the decision is not provably different than the reality had the utterance never occurred.
I, personally, wouldn’t want to be in a position where your best defense is an argument of incompetence, but I’m also not a politician.
Most journalistic entities will corroborate sources before publishing.
That's so patently ridiculous so some evidence on your part would be useful. Because we know that many of the biggest stories of all time e.g. Watergate (1972) relied on anonymous whistleblowers.
Condé Nast apparently hemorrhages money regularly. Journalistic integrity is probably second to profitability.
I really don’t have a stance on this particular claim one way or another, it’s just how it seems on the surface to me.
Discrediting the media as a whole, taking any media story to be untruthful by default is the wrong approach. Without independent media, the only mouthpiece is the state.
Instead, we should compare stories from multiple sources and fact check where we can, and use our critical thinking to evaluate the motivations behind the actors in a story.
I meant I was not taking a position on anything particular in this Vanity Fair article. You are correct though that there is a pattern. We can agree there.
At the end of the day, I just don’t trust corporations to be fair arbiters of objective truth. Not because it’s inherently impossible but because nobody seems to care about it these days. They’re just giving the market what they demonstrably want.
Note: I am not posting anonymously. My username is my real name.
But that's fine - I agree there needs to be deep investigation in to what exactly happened. This is just a handy lead for investigators.
Those statements are such political dynamite and evoke such an emotional response from the public that they become suspicious merely due to their political effectiveness. It doesn't mean they're not true, just much less likely to be true so we should be careful in treating them as fact.
I don't think that's a likely outcome, yet, but the basic presumption that your political opponents aren't out to murder you is a fundamental pillar of democratic norms.
Government acquisition is an enormously complicated process, and that statement is completely true. "Not good" is an understatement; this kind of thing can get government employees fired and cost contractors millions of dollars.
"But the million tests, some of which were distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to several states, were of no help. According to documents obtained by Vanity Fair, they were examined in two separate government laboratories and found to be “contaminated and unusable.”"
And that would be why. Procurement fraud is an enormous problem that gets people killed. (The corruption of the system even with current procurement controls is bad enough, but do remember the Civil War vendors selling rotten meat to the Army.)
As for the rest of the allegations in the article, if any of it is true then this is likely to be the worst scandal in the history of the United States.