The Ethical Optimist

There was quite a dust storm brewing today on the Counselor’s Academy list serve regarding the “F” word…yup, FLACK. (By the way, the correct spelling is actually flak…who knew.)

According to my esteemed colleague Dick Pirozollo:

There is no “C” in Flak — it comes from a five-pound German word that describes the puffy clouds we see the bombers fly thru in WWII movies. The clouds are filled with shards of metal (shrapnel a French word) and we protect ourselves from this weapon by wearing a “Flak Jacket.” Those of the Woodstock generation told our parents: “Don’t gimme no flak” until we got drafted and the Army gave us a “Flak Jacket”. Hack, by the way, comes from the word for a breed of horse used to pull Hackney Carriages, often going clip clop on the paving stones in New York City. Being a hack writer, does not mean you write with an axe, it is a reflection of The clip clop beat of writing news stories using no sentence longer than five words.

Thanks to Dick for the clarification and the impromptu history lesson.

Back to the dust storm. It surfaced with an initial question that stated:

PRSA just blast e-mailed a social media seminar application which will be conducted by a person who has a blog called “The Flack.” I personally hate that title and as a former journalist conjure up only negative images of “Flacks.” I don’t think PRSA should have anything to do with someone perpetuating that derogatory name, let alone put him up as an educator or sanctioned expert associated with PRSA.

FYI, the blog in question is written by a PR pro by the name of Peter Himler.  (There is another blog using the same name on my blog roll written by Howard Wolfson that is great reading.)

The majority of respondents agreed that the word flack is negative, and hurts our profession overall:

“The term “flack” is a pejorative in public relations circles, yet this is often how journalists describe PR professionals. Personally I am not a big fan of this tag, but it is what it is. By sharing best practices and exposing ethical lapses, it is my hope that “the flack” will follow “the hack” into semantic oblivion.”

Frankly, outside the love/hate relationship of journalists and PR people, flack isn’t really that well known. We are more likely to be called spin doctors (perhaps the blog in question should be renamed The Spinmeister…). If I referred to myself as a flack in front of my folks, they’d just give me a blank stare. Hmmm…similar to the blank look I get from relatives when I tell them I’m in PR (that’s sorta like advertising, right?).

As to the “F” word, I’ve seen quite a few bloggers use it. One respondent noted that PR Newswire once used the word in an article they issued. Good lord, our own vendors are referring to us as flacks?

So, here is my big question. Do we need to take a page from the NAACP and call for a ban on the “F” word altogether? Or, is it okay for those within the confines of the profession to use it, but beware to those outsiders who dare speak it?

I, too, hope that flack falls into semantic oblivion. Then again, I hope Spin Doctor follows close behind it. The more we work as a profession to explain to the world who we are and what we do, the better our chances of that happenng.

Remember Kermit singing, “It’s not easy being green”? Well, it’s not easy being a PR ethicist either! There are days when I feel like I’m swimming upstream.

Such is the case with the brouhaha over Andrew Cohen’s on-camera essay for CBS News’ “Sunday Morning” program this past weekend. A show which, by the way, relies heavily on PR folks for its content.

Mr. Cohen felt the need to lambaste my profession for pointing out the ethical faux pas made by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan in admitting that he had “lied” to the American people in his role as mouthpiece for the Bush Administration.

Cohen feels that we dare not point the finger when we are “an industry, the every essence of which is to try to convince people that a turkey is really an eagle.”   He goes on to say “Show me a PR person who is “accurate” and “truthful,” and I’ll show you a PR person who is unemployed.”

Really? I seem to be doing quite well…maybe it’s because I’ve built my business based on being an ethical PR practitioner? I actually have a great business BECAUSE I’m honest.

Frankly, I think Cohen let his personal bias against PR folks, who reporters have a love/hate relationship with, cloud his objectivity.

Needless to say, a veritable horde of PR folks went on the defense, including the PRSA.  Jeffrey Julin, Chairman & CEO of PRSA (and a great guy, by the way), made a great point when he wrote, “For public relations professionals, engaging diverse and often skeptical audiences requires top-flight skills in communications, creativity and even persuasion, but a trust once lost cannot be regained. Unemployment, contrary to your opinion, is reserved for the professional who has lost his or her credibility.”

Jeff’s right on the mark.  If I was a “flack” I wouldn’t have the solid relationships with clients, reporters and others who are my bread and butter.

Are there unethical PR people? Of course there are. There are unethical people, period…in every profession.  Like lawyers and journalists, we get a bad rap because we’re more visible than many other professions.  When we have something to say, it’s out there for the world to see…and it’s an increasingly transparent world.

Cohen seems to be whining under the resulting onslaught from the PR community.  In fact, he says he is “now the target of a public relations effort to ridicule my effort, my points, my character and integrity.”  Really Andy, talk about spin and hyperbole! Conspiracy theory anyone? Yeah, we all got together at the local Starbucks and planned the campaign against you (but keep that under wraps).

Then, talk about liars, he says, “I am not taking it personally.”  Bullshit, of course you are! Who wouldn’t? Are you now exempt from the human race?  You said something ridiculous and now you’re trying to explain yourself.  Hey, just admit you went overboard (you tried, but it was a lame attempt) and take the hit.

His resulting diatribe of defense holds little water…more the ramblings of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar who now says he never wanted a cookie in the first place.

In any event, he does make one relevant suggestion in saying, “use this [sic] as an opportunity to discuss among yourselves how a profession built on spin can survive with its credibility intact in a world where people are more sophisticated than ever in ferreting out such spin from the truth.”

He’s quite right.  The world is increasingly transparent and those who survive on spin won’t survive for long.  We need to take a closer look at the clients we represent and whether or not we are the stewards of an honest and open dialog. If we’re not, we have some explaining to do.

That said, every voice has a right to be heard and represented whether the media or public agree with it or not.  That’s not spin, it’s democracy.