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

The implied accusation was that Johnson & Johnson prioritized profits over safety.

Inhumane treatment, racism (Dao was Asian American), and corporate greed. The implied accusation was that Johnson & Johnson

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. Rawl refused to apologize publicly for weeks, hid

The organizations that survive are not necessarily the wealthiest or most powerful. They are the ones that understand the grammar of accusation and apology. They know when to fight (denial, provocation) and when to yield (mortification). They know that a crisis is not a problem to be solved but a narrative to be navigated. They know when to fight (denial, provocation) and

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 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 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.”