Apparently, I’m supposed to cringe at the word “flack” as used to describe PR professionals like me. But, um, instead I kinda named my website after the term. Sorry!

From the PR News blog:

Technically, most dictionaries will refer to flack as a press agent/spokesperson. But we all know it’s not the preferred name for a spokesperson, for a communicator, for a PR executive. Yet it’s used all the time.  Whether behind your back or to your face…

…it’s a sad story — or a sad state of affairs — any time bona fide PR professionals (and I am assuming the PR dept at AIG is legit) are referred to as “flacks.”

Okay, true. It’s not my preferred name, but the use of the term flack is not the least bit offensive to me. Furthermore, I’ve had many a journalist and PR pro ask me what the word means, as they have never before heard it used to describe a communicator or spokesperson.

Now, I do agree with the blogger on several points. The NY Post was being less than professional and showing complete bias by recently referring to a spokesperson as a “flak.” I would roll my eyes if I was quoted that way, especially if it was spelled incorrectly like that.

But the bottom line is this:

The NY Post’s printed flack attack only speaks to the complete lack of trust the reporter has in that spokesperson. This is not something that can be prevented by one good response to a question. A solid media/flack relationship develops over time and boils down to how much respect you’ve earned (and keep) as a PR professional.

It’s that deteriorated media relationship, not word choice, that is so troublesome.