If I was a paid commentator in the Australian media, allegedly a senior figure in the politico-commentariat, I would attempt to ensure that any message I sent into the mainstream was consistent with my beliefs, was backed with facts, and created an argument to sway dissenters to my method of thinking. That's just my view. Richard Neville's style is to use every available media cliche, lies, distortions, half-truths and deranged rantings to back an essentially unwinnable argument.
I believe Richard's major fault with his presentation is his distinct lack of credibility. When you make statements such as;
'Why did it take us take so long to admit there were no WMD's in Iraq, apart from the ones we imported. (Depleted uranium, cluster bombs, napalm, gun ships, vacuum bombs. Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq's health ministry, has confirmed that US forces used mustard gas, nerve gas, and other incendiary chemicals on Fallujah).'
I wonder where Richard got that tidbit from? Checking Google only has a very long list of anti-US sites and news services repeating these claims, with no secondary confirmation sources. Nothing at the UN. Nothing to the HRC. No CNN reports. Nothing.
Richard makes the claim, Richard must verify or provide proof. Otherwise, Richard can get sued. The off hand remark that someone else made the claim is commonly known as 'hearsay'. Usually dismissed as evidence of no consequence, hearsay is rumour or second hand information attempted to be passed as facts by a second or third party. Richard Neville is currently in the middle of this disingenuous version of Chinese whispers. Credibility is a precious thing when the only thing of value you believe you contribute to society is your version of events.
Richard Neville should quit whilst he's behind.
Crossposted at Bastards Inc.