In many cases I can certainly agree. The obvious comparison here might be the Frost/Nixon interviews, which were arranged around promotion of Nixon's memoirs just like these people were promoting their book or film. Nixon didn't deserve a pass from Frost simply because his questions went against the intentions of their agents who set up the interview, and historically-speaking it's damn good Frost broke the rules.
But if anyone made the claim that should apply to every celebrity, that's a problem. Maybe if someone really, truly, believed and had compelling evidence that Tarantino's films have led to an increase in real-world violence somewhere, they might feel obligated to treat him as a hostile interview - but I'm not buying it. It's a much shorter interview than Nixon's, it's only being shown on one show on one channel as an entertainment spot that routinely calls people on to plug their creative projects, and even Frost didn't just keep asking the same question eleven times until their time ran out.
I guess it comes down to how much the audience wants to see your subject squirm. I would have rather heard about insights into the film or Richard's book, which I'm interested to read now and looks like it might even comment on his behavior in the interview.