The Game of Misrepresentation

Even though Dr. Oz might not think his show is about medicine, some of the show's 3.4 million daily viewers might be under the impression that it is indeed a medical show.

The show has "Dr." in the title.

On air, Oz presents himself as a Columbia University heart surgeon and often dresses in scrubs. He also presents health and wellness advice to his audience. Most of his advice focus on diet, health, and fitness, but he covers other health-related topics as well.

Still, Oz suggests the "Dr." part of his show's name shouldn't be taken literally. He told NBC:

"It's called The Dr. Oz Show. We very purposely, on the logo, have 'Oz' as the middle, and the 'Doctor' is actually up in the little bar for a reason. I want folks to realize that I'm a doctor, and I'm coming into their lives to be supportive of them. But it's not a medical show."

This cuts to the core of the controversy surrounding Oz — his show looks like medical advice and sounds (sort of) like medical advice, but it definitely is not medical advice, per Dr. Oz himself.

A recent study of 40 episodes the show aired in 2013 found that roughly half the advice doled out on it had little to no solid scientific evidence to back it up.

This type of circular reasoning always seems to get the “reasoner” in trouble and I recall 2 other situations where this type of stupidity was used.

The first situation was when Denzel Washington was playing the character of a lawyer in a movie and told his wife that he was not lying to her, he was just withholding information from her... WTF???

The second situation, when our then President Bill Clinton was trying to explain the different ways in which the word “is” could be used and in so doing could cause the listener to misunderstand.... again, WTF???

Here is President Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Holy Moly.... maybe Dr. Oz read President's Clinton's response before he made his comments to NBC... I mean, the logic is rather similar in its idiocies.

So, why do Americans do this?

According to our Legal Dictionary Online:

• Misrepresentation is an assertion or manifestation by words or conduct that is not in accord with the facts.
  
• Misrepresentation is a tort, or a civil wrong.
  

This means that a misrepresentation can create civil liability if it results in a pecuniary loss. For example, assume that a real estate speculator owns swampland but advertises it as valuable commercially zoned land. This is a misrepresentation. 

To create liability for the maker of the statement, a misrepresentation must be relied on by the listener or reader. Also, the speaker must know that the listener is relying on the factual correctness of the statement.

Finally, the listener's reliance on the statement must have been reasonable and justified, and the misrepresentation must have resulted in a pecuniary loss to the listener.

A misrepresentation need not be intentionally false to create liability. A statement made with conscious ignorance or a reckless disregard for the truth can create liability. Nondisclosure of material or important facts by a fiduciary or an expert, such as a doctor, lawyer, or accountant, can result in liability. 

If the speaker is engaged in the business of selling products, any statement, no matter how innocent, may create liability if the statement concerns the character or quality of a product and the statement is not true. In such a case, the statement must be one of fact.

I would like to state that I am an “uneducated novice” when it comes to understanding and explaining anything that revolve around the law and legalities and since I no longer play the game in the “Big Boy World,” I am no longer (grin) in a position to throw my weight around on paper, but this whole Dr Oz thing sounds a little “fishy” if you ask me.... and, I know that you did not actually ask me, but I am sharing my thought just in case you change your mind and decide to ask me...

The few times that I have watched the show recently, Dr Oz has spent several minutes at the end of the show explaining that there are people out there who are pretending to be him and he just wants his audience to know that this statements are not coming from him...

And, while that is very admirable indeed and is a good way to protect his “image” going forward, why did he not make disclaimers either at the beginning or end of his show indicating that he is not giving medical advice... As a practicing doctor, Dr. Oz surely is aware as to how gullible the American public is, was, and continues to be when it comes to areas of knowledge about which they know nothing at all.

But Americans seem to like playing this Game of Misrepresentation and for the most part, we (they) do it so well. 

For example:

I used to work for a Proprietary College (that sold stock on Wall Street) who targeted (80% of the time) those students who would never have been accepted by any other College or University and imply that they could be successful when their Wonderlic Test Scores (used as an entrance exam) proved otherwise. Students were passed through at a cost of $35,000/each year with the odds stacked against them of getting and/or holding a job after graduation.

This is America at her best again...