Death of The Interview  

In a recent trending video, The Bear and Fantastic Four star, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, is seen walking into a press room yelling, “What’s up, influencers?” Though humorous, the actor’s recent joke also captures a growing truth about the state of entertainment journalism. In today’s content-saturated landscape, the traditional interview seems to be a relic. 

What once demanded extensive research and journalistic ethics has been replaced by content designed for virality, as publications scramble to adapt to the tastes, humour and attention spans of younger audiences. 

Whether they’re playing with puppies, completing a lie detector test or sweating through hot wings, these days, interviews with public figures feel less like an opportunity for meaningful conversation and more of a set-up for viral moments. 

This isn’t to say entertainment interviews are purely intellectual pursuits. It is entertainment after all. But the issue with gimmick-driven formats is that the gimmick often takes center stage, leaving little room for genuine conversation or critical reflection on the work being promoted. From a marketing standpoint, the strategy is perfect.  

Why risk a journalist offering honest critique, be it positive or negative, when you can simply pay an influencer to essentially sell your show or movie (or its cast) for you? 

Through the rise of platforms like YouTube and TikTok, influencers have been able to build communities and ultimately replace lineups of journalists in a press room because of their follower count. But when outreach is prioritized over actual substance, meaningful questions are frequently avoided.  

Instead, public figures are expected to perform carefully curated versions of themselves, often reduced to oversexualized nicknames they’ve been given online or Gen Z slang they don’t relate to, resulting in journalism that feels awkward and downright disrespectful. 

This isn’t just about nostalgia for hard-hitting journalism. It also reflects a growing distaste for critical discourse in favour of brand alignments. Some digital series, like Hot Ones or Chicken Shop Date, do manage to find a good middle ground. They weave in thoughtful questions that engage with the interviewee and their work in between the lighthearted gimmicks. In doing so, they’ve carved out a niche that treats curiosity and entertainment in equal measure. 

Variety magazine’s Actors on Actors series removes the interviewer altogether, allowing celebrities to engage in peer-to-peer conversations that can often feel more candid and relaxed. Still, it’s difficult to classify these formats as journalism more than it is content.  

This shift in format also raises questions about what we lose when entertainment journalism is reduced to pure promotion. Interviews, reviews and cultural commentary have long served purposes beyond entertainment. They contextualize the work, interpret its narratives and help foster critical thinking, encouraging audiences to engage with art more thoughtfully, rather than passively accepting it at face value. 

A good interview doesn’t simply sell a film or album but goes beyond that to explore the intentions behind it, the politics around its creation and the people who created it. 

When that space is overtaken by marketing-friendly fluff, we lose opportunities to engage with media past the first watch. Entertainment journalism, at its best, should help audiences think more deeply about the stories they consume, not just to decide whether they should press play.