The biggest names in and around Hollywood are increasingly turning to one another—not reporters—when it is time to sit down for a major interview. Actors, musicians and ultra‑rich business figures are appearing in filmed conversations hosted by fellow celebrities, often on streaming platforms or social media channels, rather than in traditional profiles led by professional journalists.
Reporting by the Guardian describes this shift as a move toward “celebrity on celebrity” interviews, and asks whether the industry is losing the craft of the big, searching star interview in the process.
A growing preference for peer‑to‑peer conversations
According to the Guardian’s account, some of the most high‑profile figures in entertainment and business now favor interviews conducted by their peers. These conversations are often framed as intimate, insider exchanges: a famous actor talking to another actor, or a powerful entrepreneur sitting down with a fellow high‑profile figure.
The appeal, as described in that reporting, is clear. For celebrities, a peer can feel safer than a journalist. The interviewer likely understands the pressures of fame, may have overlapping social circles, and is less likely to press hard on uncomfortable topics. For audiences, there is the promise of candid banter and a sense of being allowed to eavesdrop on a private chat between people who already know each other.
The Guardian notes that this format has become particularly attractive at a moment when ultra‑rich businesspeople hold unprecedented levels of wealth and cultural influence. The article links this to a broader public mood that such figures should be held to account more robustly.
What gets asked—and what does not
The same qualities that make celebrity‑on‑celebrity interviews appealing can also limit what they reveal. The Guardian report argues that when a powerful figure chooses a peer instead of a journalist, more probing questions are often left unasked.
Because both participants are public brands in their own right, there can be strong incentives to avoid conflict. A star may hesitate to challenge another star too sharply, aware that any tense exchange could reverberate through shared agents, studios or business partners. The conversation may linger on shared experiences, mutual admiration and promotional talking points, rather than on controversies, labor issues or the social impact of a guest’s business decisions.
In this environment, the Guardian suggests, the traditional “big star interview”—the long, carefully reported conversation in which a journalist weaves together on‑the‑record dialogue, off‑camera observation and independent research—risks being sidelined. The result, the piece contends, is that some of the most powerful cultural and economic figures face fewer rigorous, on‑the‑record questions in widely seen forums.
Power, wealth and accountability
The Guardian’s reporting places this trend against a backdrop of mounting concern about concentrated wealth and power. It notes that ultra‑rich businesspeople have amassed more resources and influence than in previous eras, and that many observers believe such figures should be subject to tougher scrutiny.
That sense of unease, the outlet argues, is sharpened by the political prominence of wealthy business leaders. The article points to the fact that a rich businessman is now in his second self‑driven bid for high office, framing this as part of a broader pattern in which business fame and political ambition increasingly overlap.
Within that context, who gets to ask questions—and in what setting—takes on added importance. A conversation between two celebrities can be engaging and revealing about personality, but it is less likely to interrogate how a fortune was built, how a company treats workers, or how a public figure’s decisions affect people with far less power.
The Guardian report does not claim that every celebrity‑on‑celebrity conversation is soft or superficial. Instead, it raises the concern that, as this format becomes more common, it can crowd out interviews designed from the start to test claims, cross‑check facts and bring in perspectives beyond the guest’s own narrative.
What this means for audiences
For viewers and readers, the shift described by the Guardian changes the kind of access they receive to the people who shape entertainment and, increasingly, public life.
On one hand, celebrity‑hosted interviews can feel more relaxed and emotionally open. A star may disclose stories to a peer that they would not share with a stranger. Fans may feel closer to their favorite figures when they watch them joke, reminisce or commiserate with someone who shares their world.
On the other hand, the Guardian’s reporting suggests that audiences may be getting fewer chances to see those same figures answer sustained, independent questioning. Without a reporter whose job is to verify information and introduce outside context, important lines of inquiry—about money, power, responsibility and impact—may never surface.
The article frames this not as a problem of individual celebrities, but as a structural shift in who controls the terms of public conversation. When powerful people can choose only friendly interviewers, they can also choose which parts of their story are never publicly tested.
Why the format debate matters
The Guardian’s examination of celebrity‑on‑celebrity interviews ultimately turns on a question of purpose. If the goal of a conversation is to entertain, the peer‑to‑peer format can succeed on its own terms. If the goal is also to inform the public about how influential people use their power, the article argues that something is lost when professional interviewers are pushed aside.
As more stars and business leaders opt for controlled, insider‑style conversations, the balance between access and accountability continues to shift. For now, the Guardian’s reporting highlights a tension at the heart of modern fame: the same platforms that promise unprecedented visibility can also make it easier for the most powerful figures to decide exactly who gets to ask them questions—and which questions never get asked at all.
