How robust is WSJ’s influence?

Picked up via , CJR: The Rupert Watch has an interesting quote regarding the that links into recent discussion over influence. 

The Journal‘s credibility is the reason that it is valuable. If its readers, especially its many investor-class Wall Street readers, start to sniff out that the news in the paper about, say, China, is not straight, that it smells of hidden agendas, they’ll move to The Financial Times faster than you can click a mouse. They want to make money and they want the straight story. If Murdoch follows his pattern of bending to power at the Journal, he’ll have to do it very slowly and very subtly. We’re all watching.

Here, the ability to provide a “straight story” is considered to be influential.  It adds value, creating a good reputation, and so enhancing its influence. 

But this, like beauty, , and could easily be lost.  Influence may be a difficult thing to evaluate – but without care its power is surely .  

As the found, when trust is gone, no-one listens and you have zero influence, even when you are right.

Published by

Heather Yaxley

Heather Yaxley is passionate about PR - teaching the CIPR qualifications, lecturing part-time at Bournemouth University and running the Motor Industry Public Affairs Association (MIPAA). I'm undertaking a PhD looking at Career Strategies in PR. I love sharing ideas and knowledge - connecting news and views by blogging on public relations and educational developments, especially relating to accelerated and active learning. I'm also a published author, qualified trainer and experienced consultant.