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.
The implied accusation was that Johnson & Johnson prioritized profits over safety. Inhumane treatment, racism (Dao was Asian American), and
Inhumane treatment, racism (Dao was Asian American), and corporate greed. Second, his initial apologia used provocation (blaming Dao),
Munoz violated two key Hearit principles. First, he failed to separate the technical violation (did the crew follow rules?) from the moral violation (was the treatment acceptable?). Second, his initial apologia used provocation (blaming Dao), which is only effective when the other party is universally condemned. In this case, the public sided with Dao. When an organization faces an accusation
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.