Interviews come in the form of video, audio or text. Video and audio are more complicated. You have to make sure that the picture is of good quality and that the sound is clear. It is good to have a director who can tell you what to do and why you should stop tapping your fingers on the table. But it is more difficult for the user to find time to listen to such content.
With text it is a bit easier - you have time to edit, you can lick the sentences. You can arrange them in an orderly way, make up for a confused narrative. You don't hear stuttering and rustling behind the scenes in the text. But the text is worse at conveying emotion. You can't see facial expressions and gestures, you can't tell when the person is smiling or frowning. You have to cut the text and write in brackets "laughs", "rolled his eyes", "touched his fork", etc.
It is possible to do interviews:
- In person at a meeting
- Remotely (telephone, Skype, instant messenger)
- In writing, when you send a list of questions to someone and get answers to them.
The first two are better. Written is more like a questionnaire. A person sees the list of questions, thinks about them and then answers them. He can delete the parts he doesn't like. For example, the emotions that were bubbling up when discussing a hateful question. In person you would get a colourful reply, but in writing you would get a reputation-safe rebuff.
The catch. Unless you're a writer for one of the popular media outlets, it's hard to get a full-fledged interview with a celebrity. At best, a short comment or outright rejection. A face-to-face meeting is fantastic. But many top magazines willingly publish stories from freelance authors.