When an interviewer gets the email or phone call that instructs them to supply questions for an interview, she swears and sighs, and then sits down at her computer and starts writing questions she hopes will intrigue but not annoy or pry. Is it usual practice? No. Is it annoying? Yes. Have I done it myself? Abso-bloody-lutely.
Generally when I interview someone, I don't have set questions. I find out what they are passionate about, and I go from there. I'm not interviewing them to put them on the spot, humiliate them, or make some giant "move" on them to make myself more famous and "edgy".
I figure if I have the privilege to share a few minutes with someone the world finds intriguing, then I'm a complete self-absorbed douche-berry if I make it about me getting some "scoop" or a "walk out". What does my audience learn about Jennifer Lopez if I ask her about rumours of her boyfriend's sexual exploits? Nothing. All my audience learns is that I think I'm hilariously clever. Do I get another interview with J-Lo or anyone she knows well? Definitely not.
The best interviewers, and I am certainly nowhere close to any of them on their worst days, are Parkinson, Larry King and strangely enough Graham Norton. I come away from every interview they conduct liking the interviewee more and knowing something warm and intimate about them.
People who conduct interviews to embarrass the star or have them hang up tell me only one thing: they believe they are more important than the subject and, more offensively, that they are more important than their audience.