|
|
|
Last month, you might remember, Daily News op-ed columnist Mariel Garza vowed to no longer call Fleishman-Hillard because of the cost to taxpayers when the PR giant bills official clients for answering media questions. Her use of the term flacks got her featured this week in a PR industry newsletter called the Bulldog Reporter. (* Update: As Chuck points out in the comments, Garza responds on her blog.) From the Bulldog Reporter:
Surprised to see such a seemingly juvenile jab in a major daily? Don’t be. Countless journalists — newbies and vets alike — still see PR as a profession packed with shills, gatekeepers and, yes, even “flacks.” “Some of it is deserved,” Garza said when Journalists Speak Out questioned her regarding her use of such a tired phrase. Here’s how our Q&A shaped up — as well how Garza thinks PR pros can avoid having such pejoratives bandied about so freely by peeved journalists:What does the word “flack” mean to reporters?
Garza: “It’s a commonly used term for PR representatives,” Garza concedes, shrugging it off. “It’s a colloquialism — slang, that’s all. I don’t think it’s to be taken so seriously.”
What does the word mean to you?
Garza: “I think it means basically the same thing to me as it does to everybody else,” she replies. “It’s a ‘person who takes flak’ from someone else — you know, a hired gun or shield? At least, that’s how I use it.”
That sounds almost complimentary, but isn’t “flack” really a derogatory term?
Garza: “It can be used that way,” she concedes. “But I hear a lot of PR people using the term themselves. It’s like other slang that got picked up by [the people] it was originally used [against].”
So your usage of the word in the story wasn’t negative?Garza: “First, my story was a column — not an article. It was an opinion piece. The point of the story was to focus on the useless expenditures of public funds — not PR people. I don’t really have a lot of experience with PR people, unless they represent public officials,” she clarifies. “But I do know plenty of journalists who have left my offices here and gone to work for Fleishman Hillard — and they’re making a lot of money,” Garza says. “If they don’t like the word flack, I think they’re [being] paid well enough not to let it bother them.”
What do journalists think of being called “hacks” — isn’t it the same thing?
Garza: “The difference is that the word ‘hack’ is actually derogatory,” she believes. “It’s not the same. ‘Hack’ implies that you’re a non-perceptive, bad journalist. It also applies to old-timey journalists who are sensationalists.”
How can PR people avoid being called “flacks” by journalists?
Garza: “They can’t. Again, it’s just the slang for PR. You’d have to revise the American lexicon or make up another word if you didn’t want it used. It’s just a term — it doesn’t define a particular type of PR person, good or bad.”
Huh? We're talking about a newspaper that routinely refers to public officials as "lackeys" and "stooges." Flack would seem almost benign -- if it hadn't been used in such a mean-spirited manner. Garza's hollow rationalization for the use of a derogatory label in what's supposed to be a serious newspaper column would allow her to use the hated "N word" in her columns because African Americans routinely use it.
Posted by: Insider at March 19, 2004 09:39 AMAwww, lighten up. And don't miss America's favorite party game: "Whack a Flack."
The idea is turn a press release into a paper airplane and try to hit a PR person popping up out of a cubicle... or crawling along the floor. You get to choose the agency you're whacking.
http://games.e-tractions.com/gamesite/index.jsp
Posted by: Jack Mack at March 19, 2004 09:58 AMIt's fascinating that journalists who wind up on the "subject" side of the interview so often wind up complaining they were misquoted or otherwise screwed by the interviewer.
In this case, Mariel says she was "duped" by a reporter who "wrongly paraphrased our conversation with me, then put quote marks around it."
http://www.marielgarza.blogspot.com
Posted by: Chuck Tatum at March 19, 2004 10:26 AMI'd always thought that "flak" (or "flack") was derived from the military term for anti-aircraft fire: shoot a bunch of bullets into the sky and hope you hit something.
It certainly fits, and doesn't strike me as particularly derogatory. It certainly wasn't when I used to call Bobbi Cowan, one of the great music publicists, "Roberta Flak."
Posted by: Todd Everett at March 19, 2004 10:33 AMI'm in PR and dislike the term and its deprecatory connotations, but Brad Smith is right that it's not worth expending any energy over. My experience with Mariel Garza is that she's pleasant and businesslike in person, whatever her private view of the PR profession, so there don't seem to be grounds for any complaints worth making. Bulldog should focus on other things.
Posted by: Tim McGarry at March 19, 2004 10:36 AMJack Mack, crack flack
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at March 19, 2004 10:37 AMGarza claims she was misquoted?!?! Does she need a flack?
Posted by: Insider at March 19, 2004 10:59 AMGarza claims she was misquoted?!?! Does she need a flack?
Posted by: Insider at March 19, 2004 10:59 AMflack attack at LA Observed, film at 11.
Posted by: ben at March 19, 2004 11:00 AMBeware of "Whack a Flack". It ain't just a game -- it's a PR tool for gathering marketing data...
http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/08/14/000814opprophet.xml
Fliegerabwehrkanone: FLAK, it's German for anti-aircraft guns, hence one comes "under FLAK".
It goes both ways, PR folks think journalists (in the aggregate) are biased and lazy. Journalists find the PR contingent (in the aggregate) obstructive and manipulative. Since the commodity being traded is information, both sides must decide whether or not the other is an honest broker, i.e. will I work with this person again or not. It's perfectly fair for a journalist to decide not if he/she determines that the information provided was tainted or for the PR rep to decide not if the information provided seemed misrepresented once it subsequently saw print.
Posted by: elisabeth at March 20, 2004 02:27 PMI've been on both sides of the fence, now in flakdom. Such a word doesn't bother me. The attitude that all PR people are full of BS and meanwhile all of the reporters are slightly below sainthood with no ulterior motivs is an enormously ridiculous one, however.
Posted by: Gary Karr at March 22, 2004 09:45 AM
Come on, Gary ... reporters "are" saints.
Editors, however ... satans in green eyeshades.
And publishers? Don't get me started ... the misbegotten spawn of Beezlebub in pinstripes...
Posted by: Brad Smith at March 22, 2004 04:02 PM
of LA Observed
A newsletter for flacks (flaks?) taking umbrage at reporters using the word flack?
Please ... what's next, covering the "cops and courts beat" is now going to be "the law enforcement and justice system community-based journalism enterprise team" or something equally managerial?
Or are reporters ("hacks" or otherwise) now to become "self-directed media content providers"?
"Hack" and "flack" are terms that everyone uses, self-deprecatingly or not; for anyone in a PR firm to get upset over it is a little much.
Posted by: Brad Smith at March 19, 2004 07:56 AM