Of course it will be technically possible, that's only a question of time. In 5-6 years, I'm sure there will be a m4/3 device costing around $1,000 capable of doing exactly this, and there will probably be software available helping the photographer choosing the "best" image. I will be very happy to use a camera like that for the occasions when I'm going to do photography and video. But not simultaneously.
The difference between video and photography is much more that the number of frames per second, minute or hour. "The decisive moment" is a combination of timing, framing, DOF, exposure etc. Video follows a timeline with totally different constraints. Good video does not equal good photography. But having the option will be nice, and for PJ/news, this will probably become very common, to great satisfaction for the bean counters who can report more profit back to the shareholders after throwing out half their staff. I'm not sure the news photographers will be equally thrilled though.
Another unfortunate side of this is that, although it shouldn't affect those camera manufacturers that concentrate on still photography only, like MF and Leica, it probably will. There will always be techno hungry people out there who will leave "traditional" hi-tech gear in the dust for a Red or whatever comes after it, making the market situation even more challenging for the traditionalists. But that's evolution, and there's no way of getting around it other than becoming more clever, more flexible... now we're approaching Darwin.