I am in the UK (Scotland) and it definitely seems to be that there is a difference here. The confrontational interview with a public figure a lot of people are annoyed with is a very well-established thing (although it seems to be fading somewhat as the likes of Paxman are replaced with less experienced presenters). I am not too familiar with the US style of interviewing but I was surprised to hear one of the guys mention that (apologies if I am mis-paraphrasing) they thought the purpose of the interview is to get the interviewee's thoughts in their own words. In my mind it's the very opposite, the whole point is to get them uncomfortable, to break through the media training and spin and to expose weak or evasive answers. Which the RPS one with Molyneux certainly did.
If anyone has lots of time to fill here are a couple of (very entertaining) examples of the kinds of confrontational and aggressive interview like that we have. Granted these are all political ones but we have the same kind of format for business owners with angry customers, which is pretty much the situation with Molyneux. Not saying one 'style' is better than another, but this is the context in which interviews like John Walker's exist I would suggest.
Edit: I changed the first one to one more akin to the RPS interview I would say, it is with the very shifty boss of a company responsible for finding work for unemployed people.