ABSTRACT This article presents a systematic review of the literature examining metajournalistic discourse, a term proposed by Carlson to encompass all public utterances about the nature and boundaries of journalism. After collecting all scholarly output (N = 77) between 2015 and 2023, a content analysis of the articles was conducted, with particular attention paid to two key areas: the components (actors, sites/audiences, and topics) and interpretive processes (definitional control, boundary-work, and legitimation) of discourse. Our findings allow us to make a number of observations regarding the current state of research: 1) the study of metajournalistic discourse is dominated by a Western bias; 2) research approaches remain journalist-centric; 3) boundary-work concerns above all the relationship of journalism to technology and market imperatives; 4) the democratic/societal role of journalism emerges as the main legitimation strategy; 5) the topics of metajournalistic discourse have organic and prompted origins.