Scoble is participating in the "should we videoblog?" discussion. Of course he probably has a vested interest(or thinks he has a vested interest) in the result of the debate leaning toward the yes we should camp so is not an impartial observer. I thought I would add my opinion:
Should video for internet distribution be made? Absolutely - if it provides value. Samples of value in internet video in my mind are content specific - humour, entertainment, news, instruction, human interest or it could be convenience for viewers to use and consume or it could even be if value is to the producer alone -- basically catharsis.
I would argue though that making valuable internet distributable video (like what Scoble did at channel nine) or audio for that matter has not much to to with blogging unless I miss the thrust of blogging so calling it video blogging, vlog-in, vblog-ing or anything else remote providing a blogging connotation seems like an attempt to ride the coattails of a popular trend - blogging.
It needs a separate distribution strategy and separate taxonomy at least separate from blogging (and obviously separate from mainstream video media distribution) but video blogging? --lame description -- I have to agree with Brad Templeton here "Please don't videoblog" - if that means producing/distributing video segments like weblogs currently are.
