"I asked him, How could we have a press column if we can't write about other work done in the press?"
About this Quote
A press column that can’t discuss the press isn’t a column; it’s a permission slip. Sydney Schanberg’s question lands with the quiet bite of someone who’s watched the machinery of journalism try to police itself into silence. It’s framed as a practical newsroom problem, but the subtext is insurgent: if journalists aren’t allowed to scrutinize journalism, then “accountability” becomes a branding exercise rather than a practice.
Schanberg is pointing at an old professional superstition: that critiquing peers is disloyal, unseemly, or worse, legally risky. In many newsrooms, the press column (or media beat) exists in a kind of diplomatic quarantine, expected to report on awards, promotions, and industry gossip, while steering clear of the more combustible question of how stories get made, spiked, softened, or spun. His line treats that arrangement as absurd on its face. The humor is procedural: he’s not grandstanding about truth, he’s asking how the job description can mean anything under the imposed constraint.
Context matters because Schanberg’s career was defined by battles over what institutions prefer not to see printed, including official narratives and newsroom timidity. The quote channels that same impatience toward internal gatekeeping. It’s also a preview of the modern media ecosystem, where platforms demand “content” but flinch at self-examination that might threaten access, advertisers, or prestige. The question is really a dare: if journalism can’t interrogate its own output, it forfeits its moral claim to interrogate anyone else’s.
Schanberg is pointing at an old professional superstition: that critiquing peers is disloyal, unseemly, or worse, legally risky. In many newsrooms, the press column (or media beat) exists in a kind of diplomatic quarantine, expected to report on awards, promotions, and industry gossip, while steering clear of the more combustible question of how stories get made, spiked, softened, or spun. His line treats that arrangement as absurd on its face. The humor is procedural: he’s not grandstanding about truth, he’s asking how the job description can mean anything under the imposed constraint.
Context matters because Schanberg’s career was defined by battles over what institutions prefer not to see printed, including official narratives and newsroom timidity. The quote channels that same impatience toward internal gatekeeping. It’s also a preview of the modern media ecosystem, where platforms demand “content” but flinch at self-examination that might threaten access, advertisers, or prestige. The question is really a dare: if journalism can’t interrogate its own output, it forfeits its moral claim to interrogate anyone else’s.
Quote Details
| Topic | Writing |
|---|
More Quotes by Sydney
Add to List




