This is a good, quick, understandable reading with one clear goal in mind. Paul Dombrowski is tearing a Celebrex ad to shreds and rightfully so. Dombrowski discusses how he cannot actually show the ad due to copyright reasons but describes it in detail. He discusses how this ad technically does convey all of the necessary information, but it does so in a way that most viewers will not actually understand any of the information. This infuriates Dombrowski, as it should. Dombrowski then goes into a background section and an analysis section. In the background section, he discusses how through clinical trials, a side effect of Celebrex was increased risk of heart attack. However, Celebrex did not take the ethical road and inform the viewers of their ad clearly of this risk. They want people to buy their drug and do not care whether they know about the dangerous side effect. Dombrowski discusses several interesting points in the analysis. One important point was bringing up Eric Eisenberg’s seminar elaborating on strategic ambiguity. This reading is an interesting look into ethics in rhetoric, or lack thereof.
This is an interesting and quick TedTalk discussing how to spot a Liar. When I read in Dombrowski about strategic ambiguity, it reminded me of several of the lying tactics in this awesome video. Celebrex, by presenting the information in the way that it does, is really lying to the consumer about the risks involved with this drug.
Can we think of any other companies who have evaded the truth in a way similar to this?