"Most journalists now believe that a person's privacy zone gets smaller and smaller as the person becomes more and more powerful"
About this Quote
Power doesn’t just attract scrutiny; it’s treated as a solvent that dissolves the right to be left alone. Roger Mudd, speaking as a journalist about journalists, captures a newsroom logic that feels simultaneously practical and self-serving: the more influence you wield, the less entitlement you have to a private life. It’s a line that reads like a principle but operates like a permission slip.
The specific intent is diagnostic, not celebratory. Mudd isn’t claiming this is morally clean; he’s naming a belief that had hardened into professional common sense. By framing it as “most journalists now believe,” he hints at a shift: privacy wasn’t always this elastic, and the “now” suggests a culture of reporting that has grown more aggressive, more competitive, more comfortable with turning intimacy into “public interest.”
The subtext is about thresholds. “Privacy zone” sounds clinical, like a measured boundary, but the metaphor is quietly brutal: power makes you fair game. That logic can protect accountability reporting - leaders can’t hide corruption behind closed doors - yet it also invites mission creep, where personal mess becomes political relevance by default. The shrinking-zone idea also smuggles in inevitability. If privacy naturally contracts with power, then intrusion looks less like a choice and more like gravity.
Context matters: Mudd came up in an era when broadcast news traded heavily on institutional authority and a public-service self-image, then watched the rise of more personality-driven politics and media, where access, scandal, and ratings increasingly set the agenda. His sentence sits at the fault line between watchdog journalism and voyeurism, asking whether “powerful” means “accountable” - or just “profitable.”
The specific intent is diagnostic, not celebratory. Mudd isn’t claiming this is morally clean; he’s naming a belief that had hardened into professional common sense. By framing it as “most journalists now believe,” he hints at a shift: privacy wasn’t always this elastic, and the “now” suggests a culture of reporting that has grown more aggressive, more competitive, more comfortable with turning intimacy into “public interest.”
The subtext is about thresholds. “Privacy zone” sounds clinical, like a measured boundary, but the metaphor is quietly brutal: power makes you fair game. That logic can protect accountability reporting - leaders can’t hide corruption behind closed doors - yet it also invites mission creep, where personal mess becomes political relevance by default. The shrinking-zone idea also smuggles in inevitability. If privacy naturally contracts with power, then intrusion looks less like a choice and more like gravity.
Context matters: Mudd came up in an era when broadcast news traded heavily on institutional authority and a public-service self-image, then watched the rise of more personality-driven politics and media, where access, scandal, and ratings increasingly set the agenda. His sentence sits at the fault line between watchdog journalism and voyeurism, asking whether “powerful” means “accountable” - or just “profitable.”
Quote Details
| Topic | Privacy & Cybersecurity |
|---|
More Quotes by Roger
Add to List




