The article entitled “From ‘Crossroad’ to ‘Middle Zone’” can be understood as a meta-discourse analysis of the “reflexive discursive practice” by Anglo-American scholars around media sociology, and is a study focusing on what media sociology “is.” However, it is misread by Yao Wenyuan and Hu Yiqing, in the sense of what media sociology “ought to be,” as our “failure” in boundary work. Echoing this fundamental misreading, they also make a communication-centered and “de-historictized” judgment to the past traditions of media sociology, and attempt to advocate a “true media sociology” with mediatization theory as its core. After responding to their criticism and misreading, we insist that media sociology is not a given but a historical cause, and that it should be examined by being placed into the “continuum” notion, in order for us to critically inherit or creatively transform established traditions, to stimulate the interdisciplinary imaginations in the digital age, and to better understand the intersection and penetration between “the social logic of the media” and “the media logic of the society.” In addition, for the purposes of illustration, the article examines interpretive communities of Chinese media sociologists in terms of such issues as the “definition” and “topics” of media sociology.