Trust-Repair Strategies in Crisis Rhetorical (Sub-)Arenas: An Argumentative Perspective

ABSTRACT

This study extends the rhetorical arena approach to crisis communication with an argumentative perspective. A rhetorical activity in which reasons are communicated to justify and obtain acceptance for a claim, argumentation plays a crucial role in (re)legitimizing corporate trustworthiness following a crisis episode. Arguments supporting or rejecting trust claims do not only pervade the corporate crisis response message (e.g., an apology), but also the public reactions in the rhetorical arena, i.e., the multivocal conversational space that opens up in a crisis context. Therefore, rhetorical arena crisis communication takes the form of an argumentative polylogue in which corporate trustworthiness features as the main issue. We develop a method for the analysis of trust-related polylogues occurring in rhetorical (sub-)arenas. Unlike existing methods, like tone analysis of online comments, our approach enables to examine, more specifically, the reasons organizations and stakeholders present for or against trust. This, in turn, provides an enhanced method to assess the effectiveness of a crisis response strategy. In order to illustrate our approach, we elaborate a case study based on an apologetic article published by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and a sample of public reactions appearing on media articles and on subsequent online discussion websites.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ A preliminary version of our analysis has been presented in a conference paper (see Palmieri & Musi, 2019). This paper develops a more systematic account of how our theoretical and methodological approach contributed to the broader field of crisis communication and, more in particular, to its multi-vocal perspective.

² For the notions of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency in argument assessments, see Blair and Johnson (2000).

³ Interestingly, here Zuckerberg changes engagement strategy from an exclusive we to an inclusive we through which he presents himself as a peer in the wider community of Internet users. This way, he signals communion and avoids the impolite effect of framing users only as ignorant, something which could be easily implied by a statement such as “users are distrustful of Facebook because they don’t understand it”.

⁴ When rebuttals attack the opponent’s argument, they do not necessarily defeat the opponent’s claim but they leave it unjustified. However, other arguments could exist to prove the claim which the rebuttal has not addressed.

⁵ We observe that through this endoxon Zuckerberg strategically reframes the concepts of “transparency” and “control”. Transparency would be defined not based on corporate accountability and disclosure but as the empowerment of users (control), while control would correspond to a goal secured by users’ availability of transparency tools. Interestingly, such redefinition strategy is identified and criticised by the other critical comment considered in this paper: “Zuckerberg wants to redefine “transparency, choice and control” – let’s not give him consent” (Lomas, 2019)

⁶ “It’s also true you weren’t setting out to build “a global company”. The predecessor to Facebook was a ‘hot or not’ game called ‘FaceMash’ that you hacked together while drinking beer in your Harvard dormroom. […] The seeds of Facebook’s global business were thus sown in a crude and consentless game of clickbait whose idea titillated you so much you thought nothing of breaching security, privacy, copyright and decency norms just to grab a few eyeballs.” (Lomas, 2019).

⁷ A maxim of the locus from consequences to action is here employed stating that if the side effects of an action are worse than the expected benefits, the action is not good (see Rigotti, 2008).

⁸ “He also repeats the spurious claim that Facebook gives users “complete control” over what it does with personal information collected for advertising. We’ve heard this time and time again from Zuckerberg and yet it remains pure BS. Yo Mark! First up we’re still waiting for your much trumpeted ‘Clear History’ tool.” (Lomas, 2019).