[exclusive] — Keith M. Hearit Crisis Communication Management: Applying Theory To Real Cases

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.”

Introduction: The Necessary Marriage of Theory and Practice In the high-stakes arena of crisis communication, the gap between academic theory and operational reality is often where reputations go to die. While many consultants offer checklists and many scholars offer abstract models, Keith M. Hearit stands out as a critical voice who insists that theory must be tested against the messy, emotional, and irrational nature of real crises. Hearit praises this case not just for 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. The apology was implicit in the action: “We

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. Hearit, a professor of communication at Western Michigan

The crisis defined Exxon as a villain for a generation. The company paid billions in cleanup and fines, but the reputational wound never fully healed. Hearit uses this case to teach a crucial lesson: When the accusation is about values, a legalistic defense is the worst possible response. Case Study 3: United Airlines’ “Dragging” Incident (2017) – The Social Media Apocalypse The Crisis: Dr. David Dao was violently dragged off a United Express flight to make room for crew members. Video of the bloodied, incoherent passenger went viral.

This article explores Hearit’s foundational theories—specifically the "rhetorical stance" of apologia, the typology of crisis responses, and the concept of "corporate apologies"—and applies them to real-world cases, from the infamous to the instructional. The Rhetoric of Apologia Before Hearit, crisis communication was often dominated by situational crisis communication theory (SCCT), which focused on attributions of responsibility. Hearit shifted the lens toward rhetorical theory . He posits that a crisis is fundamentally a genre of rhetorical discourse. When an organization faces an accusation, it enters a public argument where the stakes are legitimacy and survival.