I found the host obnoxious, personally, and the show was from the outset staged as a Fox style take-down: Scoble is "self-obsessed" (this "narcissism" angle was a recurring theme in this. Yet another discussion about Scoble taking a picture of himself in the shower...in a series of blog posts where he was talking about integrating Google Glass into his life) because he uses the device for biometrics, leveraging technology for better health insights? I'd say as a 48 year old male he's making a smart decision.
Another irritating aspect to every one of these discussions is the argument that Google is an advertising company so therefore everything they do is and will always be about advertising. While Google has some golden handcuffs of advertising dropping a lot of cash in their coffers (which their competitors have as well, as an aside, to varying success. Microsoft has an ad branch. Apple has an ad branch), they have endlessly been demonstrating that they are trying to build secondary businesses.
The raw cynicism to discard an entire computing experience is not useful.
To be perfectly frank it was a throwaway comment - I was being facetious.
I don't consider accusing someone of naivete to be particularly pejorative but if you are offended on his behalf, I suppose I would qualify the comment by saying he strikes me as the kind of bloke that would pay full price at a market stall rather than haggling. As do lots of Americans :-)
I think I would go less with "legend" and more with "notorious twat". Can't stand that aggressive style of interviewing myself, especially because now every half-wit newsreader thinks they're the next Paxman by interrupting the interviewee every 5 seconds.
Paxman can be quite aggressive, and I would say justifiably, with politicians trying to avoid answering a question. For another side of Paxman see this interview with Christopher Hitchens - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00r2c42
In what way was he being a twat in that interview? The MP kept responding to his question as if he hadn't heard it, so Paxman repeated it, many times, even apologizing for repeating it, and eventually giving up.
I'm Canadian. Nonetheless, his approach is very similar to the type you find from Fox hosts, so I find it odd that you think this demonstrates some sort of American/World divide, when really his approach is similar to the worst American style.
I'm speaking more to the style of an "interview". Which is that the conclusion is predetermined and the engagement is a setup. The use of the video-call "straight-talker rational counterpoint" is absolutely cliche in these sorts of things. Scoble wasn't allowed to get barely a point in, but instead this was just a "FUD about Google Glass, and here's Scoble to sit in to try to pretend that this is a conversation".
It is literally garbage news. He has absolutely no interest in actually discussing anything.
"allowed"? Paxman doesn't control the mic. Scoble argued badly. I'm not agreeing with Paxman. I suspect Paxman always argues the counter point irrelevant of his opinion - that's his job. If you choose to be interviewed by Paxman you better be able to hold an argument. It's not the Jonathan Ross show.
The host is (well, was) a journalist. His mission is to ask searching questions. Scoble was being ridiculous and Paxman pointed it out to him.
Google is an advertising company, everything they do is about advertising. Google Glass is not a computing platform it is at worst a ludicrous vanity project and at best a proposed vehicle for selling advertising space.
I don't see it that way. Scoble fared quite well, but Paxman always interrupted him after a few seconds for no particular reason, so Robert basically wasn't allowed to explain himself properly.
In my opinion, Glass is an useful device, which also helps google to collect more personal data about the user wearing them. I don't see anything inherently "ludicrous" about it.
Paxman's 'grilling' is as much an opportunity as it is a challenge to the interviewee.
Dismissing it as an obnoxious, premeditated takedown underestimates Paxman's skill and as an interviewer. It's also a well known shtick of his.
Actually, Jeremy Paxman is usually a lot more obnoxious ... and a lot more effective at discomfiting, unbalancing, and pushing his guests on to the defensive. I was looking forward to him really dig the knife in and wiggle it around a bit, instead, all we got was a couple of half-hearted insults. Almost a wet and sloppy love-in by the normal Paxman standards.
Another irritating aspect to every one of these discussions is the argument that Google is an advertising company so therefore everything they do is and will always be about advertising. While Google has some golden handcuffs of advertising dropping a lot of cash in their coffers (which their competitors have as well, as an aside, to varying success. Microsoft has an ad branch. Apple has an ad branch), they have endlessly been demonstrating that they are trying to build secondary businesses.
The raw cynicism to discard an entire computing experience is not useful.