Keith M. Hearit Crisis Communication Management: Applying Theory To Real Cases |top| -

Hearit praises this case not just for the action but for the rhetorical framing . Burke did not engage in defeasibility (“We couldn’t have known”). Instead, he invoked the company’s credo—a values-based document—to frame the recall as a moral obligation, not a business calculation. The apology was implicit in the action: “We failed to protect you, and we will fix the system.”

The implied accusation was that Johnson & Johnson prioritized profits over safety. Hearit praises this case not just for the

Tylenol regained 95% of its market share within a year. The case became Hearit’s gold standard for how mortification + corrective action can transform a potential fatal crisis into a reputational asset. Case Study 2: Exxon Valdez (1989) – The Failure of Defeasibility The Crisis: The Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil. The environmental damage was catastrophic. Exxon’s initial response was slow, defensive, and legally calculated. The apology was implicit in the action: “We

Exxon chairman Lawrence Rawl engaged primarily in defeasibility (blaming the ship captain, Joseph Hazelwood, who had been drinking) and denial of intent (“It was an accident”). Rawl refused to apologize publicly for weeks, hid from the media, and minimized the spill’s impact. Case Study 2: Exxon Valdez (1989) – The

Hearit, a professor of communication at Western Michigan University and author of Crisis Management by Apology: Corporate Response to Allegations of Wrongdoing , argues that effective crisis management is not merely about controlling information—it is about managing . At its core, every crisis is a narrative battle. An organization is accused of malfeasance, negligence, or hypocrisy. The response, according to Hearit, must be rooted in robust rhetorical theory, primarily the theory of apologia, and then deployed with surgical precision.

Hearit argues that Exxon misdiagnosed the genre of accusation. The public was not asking whether Hazelwood was drunk; they were asking whether Exxon’s safety culture was toxic. By focusing on legal defeasibility (lack of control over a rogue captain), Exxon appeared arrogant and indifferent. The absence of a timely, heartfelt apology was read as an admission of deeper guilt.

Inhumane treatment, racism (Dao was Asian American), and corporate greed.