Sure. But this where we get back to "aggressive" interviewing technique.

Suppose someone makes the claim that tax cuts for the rich, or for capital gains, improves the economy. Journalist/host says "what evidence do you have of that?". Politician/pundit says something misleading, irrelevant or demonstrably false.

This is the crux point. The journalist/host can at this point either (a) move on (b) drill down into the claim made by the politician/pundit. But (b) will be clearly seen as oppositional by both the politician/pundit and by the audience (and correctly so, because that's the whole point).

In the current media landscape, this journalist/host will shortly end up with no significant guests at all, and will be described as "confrontational" and "partisan".

I disagree, (b) may or may not be seen as oppositional, depending entirely on what the issue is.

Misleading statements can be followed with questions seeking clarification. Irrelevant statements can be followed with questions asking relevance.

Demonstrably false statements will require the host to demonstrate the falsehood, otherwise they are not so. At least, questions can be asked clarifying the details of the statement.

> this journalist/host will shortly end up with no significant guests at all

so be it. If politicians don't want to look bad, they won't. But they can also lose face if they only accept softballs.

asking pertinent is not aggressive, nor does it disgust audiences. The problem, as I see it, are that journalists are mistaken wrt to what the facts are or at least what can be demonstrated), and when questions really are pertinent. A host can be as confrontational as they want, so long as they are bi-partisan (i.e fair); It's only when they are not that their manner becomes an issue to an audience.

I often see aggressive questions asked, then don't really serve a useful purpose other than give someone a hard time, e.g loaded questions.