As “boundary objects,” thought-leader articles show some characteristics of journalism but are not considered journalism in its pure sense. Yet this peripheral format occupies a critical place in the media canon and thought-leader articles have value for news organization and audience alike. Given an ongoing demand for content and a declining tendency to pay for it, thought-leader articles have a secure place. But even as they help journalism to overcome one (economic) obstacle, they raise another in the form of questions about their content: Who has a voice? Who is held to account? What agendas are pursued? How are events and topics framed? What are the values of the writer? And who benefits from having a voice, pursuing an agendum and setting the frames of the discussion? When asked of regular reporting, these questions have helped define journalism’s boundaries; when asked of thought-leader articles, the answers similarly reveal what sits inside journalism’s field. This article investigates what thought-leader articles indicate about the boundaries of journalism, through their conformity or otherwise to traditional values and roles.