The modern power dynamic of the global elite is increasingly defined by a closed loop. We are witnessing a shift in how the most influential people in business and entertainment communicate with the public, moving away from the traditional friction of a journalist’s interrogation toward a curated, peer-to-peer exchange. This is most evident in the rise of celeb-on-celeb interviews, a format that prioritizes comfort and mutual admiration over critical inquiry.
A striking example of this trend is CNN’s “1 on 1” series, which allows CEOs to interview other CEOs about their businesses. Rather than a journalist challenging a corporate leader on labor practices or wealth accumulation, the show facilitates a space where elites can “grill” each other on terms they have mutually agreed upon. A spokesperson described these conversations as “refreshingly direct,” though the direction of the conversation rarely leads toward uncomfortable truths.
This phenomenon is not limited to the boardroom. It has become the gold standard for the entertainment industry, where the journalist is increasingly relegated to the role of a ghost. In a recent Vogue feature tied to the upcoming release of The Devil Wears Prada 2, the conversation between Meryl Streep and Anna Wintour was moderated not by a reporter, but by fellow celebrity Greta Gerwig. Chloe Malle, the writer and Wintour’s successor as Vogue editor, described her own role in the process as that of a “court stenographer”—a framing that ignores the fact that in an actual court, the judge and the lawyers are rarely on the same team.
The allure of the mutual admiration society
The appeal of pairing two marquee names is obvious: it offers the audience two stars for the price of one. Variety’s annual “Actors on Actors” series is a prime example of the format’s viral success. The pairings are often inspired—such as Sydney Sweeney discussing craft with Ethan Hawke, or Leonardo DiCaprio chatting with Jennifer Lawrence—and the resulting clips are tailor-made for social media sharing.
Still, the depth of these exchanges often leaves the viewer undernourished. When Adam Sandler, who is notoriously press-shy, interviews Ariana Grande, the result is frequently a series of compliment trades. While actors can offer profound insights into their craft, they are rarely trained in the art of the follow-up question. More importantly, they are unlikely to probe the discomfiting subjects that a professional journalist would. There is a tacit understanding between peers; they know exactly which boundaries are off-limits, removing the need for a publicist to intervene.
This shift toward “simulated intimacy” has a long lineage in late-night programming. The transition from the prickliness of David Letterman to the playful, game-show atmosphere of Jimmy Fallon’s The Tonight Show signaled a move toward a more affirming, low-risk environment. Similarly, Amy Poehler’s Good Hang podcast thrives on the charm of casual conversations between friends, creating a space that feels open but remains highly controlled.
The risk of the unplanned word
The preference for peer-led interviews is not merely about comfort; it is a defense mechanism against an increasingly volatile digital landscape. In an era of intense online scrutiny, any spontaneous or unvarnished comment can be instantly weaponized. Professional journalists often push for these moments of honesty, but the fallout can be swift.
Consider the case of Jack White, who felt compelled to issue a clarifying statement after an interview with the Guardian. An observation he made regarding his own musical process was interpreted by some as a slight against Taylor Swift. In a celeb-on-celeb format, such a conversation would likely have been steered away from the point of tension and toward a safe, affirming narrative. By removing the journalist, the subject removes the risk of being perceived as “press-avoidant” while simultaneously ensuring that nothing genuinely disruptive is said.
This creates a precarious environment for the working journalist. When the industry favors “moderators” or “stenographers,” the skill of interviewing—which requires rigorous preparation and the courage to risk a subject’s irritation—is undervalued. The rise of underqualified influencers at red-carpet events further degrades the form, replacing informed questioning with inane queries that craft the “all-celeb” approach seem sophisticated by comparison.
From conversation to creation
The danger of this obsequiousness is that it is beginning to bleed into the art itself. When the culture surrounding a figure becomes a closed loop of affirmation, the creative works about those figures often follow suit. We see this in the trend of highly controlled pop-musician biopics, where actors like Colman Domingo or Miles Teller must “play ball” with estates—such as the Michael Jackson estate—to ensure access.
Even acclaimed filmmakers are participating in this trend. Sofia Coppola, known for her distinct vision, is set to make her first documentary featuring her friend Marc Jacobs as the subject. When the creator and the subject are part of the same social circle, the work risks becoming an extension of the mutual admiration society rather than a critical exploration of a life.
While a twenty-minute chat between two actors may seem harmless, the implications are far more serious when applied to those with systemic power. When CEOs who employ thousands of people are allowed to “interview” one another, the public loses the only mechanism for accountability: the independent question. The rich and powerful will always seek preferential treatment, but when the media provides the furnishings for that treatment, it ceases to be journalism and becomes a public relations exercise.
As the industry continues to lean into content-light, high-glamour pairings, the next benchmark for the “big star interview” will be whether any major publication is willing to return to the friction of the adversarial encounter. For now, the trend points toward further insulation, with more “moderated” conversations scheduled for the upcoming awards season and promotional junkets.
Do you think the “celeb-on-celeb” format offers a more authentic look at stars, or is it just a polished PR tool? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
