For decades, the “big star interview” was a cultural event. It was a high-stakes dance between a seasoned journalist and a global icon, where a single, well-timed question could peel back the layers of a carefully crafted public persona. There was a certain electricity in that tension—the push and pull between the subject’s desire for control and the reporter’s quest for truth. It was where we found the human beneath the celebrity.
However, as a journalist who has spent more than 15 years navigating the red carpets of Cannes and the press lines of the Oscars, I have noticed a unsettling shift in the wind. We are entering an era of the “mutual admiration society,” where the adversarial edge of journalism is being blunted in favor of peer-to-peer conversations. The trend is clear: the biggest names in entertainment and business are increasingly opting to be interviewed by their equals rather than by professional journalists.
This transition toward celebrity-on-celebrity interviews may feel “refreshingly direct” to those involved, but from a journalistic perspective, it risks erasing the art of the big star interview. When the interviewer shares the same social circle, the same tax bracket, and the same professional pressures as the subject, the incentive to ask the uncomfortable, revealing, or challenging question vanishes. We are trading interrogation for validation.
This isn’t just happening in the glossy pages of fashion magazines. We see infiltrating the halls of major news organizations. Recent reports suggest a growing trend where high-profile figures are given the platform to “grill” one another. For instance, You’ll see indications that CNN has explored formats like a “1 on 1” series where CEOs interview other CEOs about their businesses. While this might provide industry insights, it bypasses the essential role of the journalist: to hold power to account on behalf of the public.
The irony is particularly sharp given the historical context of hard-hitting journalism. Not long ago, the relationship between major news outlets and powerful figures was defined by legal and professional combat. A prime example is the 2018 lawsuit CNN v. Trump, which centered on the revocation of press credentials for a White House correspondent. That era was defined by a fight for access and the insistence that journalists—not peers—be the ones asking the questions.
The Rise of the ‘Court Stenographer’
In the entertainment world, this trend has reached a fever pitch. We are seeing a rise in “moderated” conversations where the journalist’s role is reduced to that of a fly on the wall. In some high-profile features, such as those reportedly tied to the promotional cycles of major films like The Devil Wears Prada 2, the actual conversation is led by a fellow celebrity rather than a reporter. In these instances, the journalist is relegated to the sidelines.
One writer has even described this diminished role as being a “court stenographer.” In a real court, the stenographer records the proceedings, but the lawyers and the judge drive the narrative and challenge the testimony. In the modern celebrity interview, however, the “lawyers” and the “judge” are often on the same team. When a celebrity interviews another celebrity, the conversation tends to orbit around shared experiences and mutual respect, leaving the more probing, systemic, or personal questions entirely off the table.
We spot this pattern repeat across various media. Whether it is a fashion designer interviewing a pop star for a niche magazine or a director moderating a chat between two A-list actors, the result is often a content-light exchange. The dialogue becomes a performance of friendship rather than a pursuit of insight. The “revealing” moments are those that the subject has pre-approved, ensuring that the brand remains untarnished.
Why the Journalistic Gap Matters
To understand why this shift is disappointing, we have to appear at what is lost when a professional journalist is removed from the equation. A journalist is trained to look for the gap between what is being said and what is actually happening. They bring a perspective that is external to the celebrity’s inner circle, allowing them to ask “why” and “how” from a position of objectivity.
When a peer conducts the interview, several things happen:
- The Relationship Tax: The interviewer is often a friend or a colleague. Asking a question that might offend the subject could jeopardize a future collaboration or a social connection.
- The Shared Echo Chamber: Peers often share the same worldviews and biases. They are less likely to question the assumptions that a journalist would find problematic.
- The PR Filter: These peer-led interviews are frequently managed as promotional tools rather than journalistic endeavors, meaning the goals are marketing-driven rather than truth-driven.
This trend reflects a broader societal shift where the ultra-wealthy and powerful have accrued unprecedented influence, leading to a climate where they can curate their own narratives with surgical precision. When the people tasked with interviewing them are likewise part of that same elevated class, the “interrogation” becomes a formality.
The Future of the Profile Piece
Does this signify the end of the deep-dive profile? Not necessarily, but it does mean that the “big interview” is becoming a rarity. For the audience, the result is a diet of “safe” content. We get the anecdotes, the fashion tips, and the mutual praise, but we lose the friction that makes a great interview memorable.
The art of the interview requires a certain amount of bravery—from both the journalist and the subject. It requires a willingness to go to the edge of discomfort. When we replace the journalist with a peer, we remove that friction, and in doing so, we remove the possibility of genuine revelation.
As we move forward, the challenge for entertainment journalism will be to reclaim its place in the room. We must move beyond being “stenographers” and return to being the drivers of the conversation. The public deserves more than a curated exchange between elites; they deserve the truth, delivered through the lens of professional curiosity and critical thinking.
Key Takeaways on the Shift in Celebrity Interviewing
- Peer-to-Peer Trend: Celebrities and CEOs are increasingly choosing to be interviewed by their equals to ensure a “safer” and more complimentary conversation.
- Loss of Objectivity: The removal of professional journalists eliminates the critical distance necessary to ask challenging or revealing questions.
- The ‘Stenographer’ Role: Journalists are increasingly acting as moderators or transcribers rather than active interrogators in high-profile profiles.
- PR-Driven Content: Peer interviews often serve as promotional tools, prioritizing brand management over journalistic discovery.
The next time you see a “celebrity-on-celebrity” cover story, ask yourself: what was not asked? The silence in those conversations is where the real story usually hides.
We wish to hear from you. Do you prefer the candid, friendly vibe of peer interviews, or do you miss the hard-hitting style of traditional journalism? Share your thoughts in the comments below.