In the midst of a long anti-Scoble ramble, Neopolean makes the same kind of point about online video that I've been making for a long while now:
Nobody consulted me - and nobody should have - but if they had, I would have said to do audio, or even just images with text. A typical news site, but with the Scoble brand. Whatever I may be feeling about him this morning, I'm not going to deny that his name is worth something in this industry.
My guess is that Scoble and co wanted to "get in" on the growing popularity of niche video news sites. The difference is that, when you take a look at what some of the other more successful sites are doing, Scoble's videos are too long (in terms of the bandwidth it takes to serve them up). If you don't have gobs of dough in the bank, then every minute is important. By not editing out the boring bits, the videos are going up as-is, gigantic and all.
Very few people are going to sit at their PC's and watch a 45 minute video - when you see successes in online video, you see short - Ze Frank, RocketBoom - stuff that doesn't take long to consume. Long video just takes up too much time and attention to deal with - and if your answer is "just listen, don't watch", then my answer is "push it out as an audio mp3". Audio is a lot easier to consume than video, and can be consumed when it's too hard (or impossible) to read (a car, out jogging, etc).
Insisting on a video format just because you can is a nice way to increase your bandwidth costs and reduce the potential size of your audience. How that works as a business plan, I'm not sure.