re he also seems to display a similar tendency.
That may be true, it's difficult to be sure from a newspaper article that will have been edited/truncated to suit the available space. Plus, it is the job of an editor to make the article as sexy and succinct as possible. Chop out any caveats, hesitations, deviations, repetitions and long-winded explanations.
Can we remember seeing some of our articles for the first time, after an editor had been "at it"? Initial surprise, then grudging resignation, then explaining to people why the article seemed biased or sensationalised.
I fear we're all pots calling the kettle black.
If anyone wants the full article, buy the book/journal.
http://cbawales.archaeologyuk.org/archinwales