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.”
Initially, United CEO Oscar Munoz engaged in provocation and victim-blaming —calling Dao “disruptive and belligerent” and defending the airline’s “established procedures.” When public fury exploded, Munoz issued a second statement that Hearit would call a hollow apology : “I apologize for having to ‘re-accommodate’ these customers.” The euphemism “re-accommodate” became a meme of corporate tone-deafness.
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. Hearit praises this case not just for the
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.
The implied accusation was that Johnson & Johnson prioritized profits over safety. The apology was implicit in the action: “We
Gross negligence, environmental destruction, and lack of compassion.
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. Hearit shifted the lens toward rhetorical theory
Inhumane treatment, racism (Dao was Asian American), and corporate greed.