Merry Generic Winter-Based Period Of Festivity, Everyone

Have you ever watched QI? I have, and it's hard not to trust Stephen Fry when he tells you something - he just has that sort of voice. So when Stephen revealed that "Winterval" was not, in fact, a rather silly, politically correct new word for Christmas, but a useful term specifically invented to describe a three-month period encompassing several religious festivals including Christmas, I believed him. After some brief and admittedly Wikipedia-based research, I have come to the conclusion that I was right to believe him - he was correct. If I had been on Birmingham City Council and had been instructed to put together a campaign to attract shoppers of all faiths to the city centre from October onwards, I think I'd try to find a less date- and faith-specific word than "Christmas" for the posters.
Strange, then, that Dr Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales, seems to be basing his Christmas message this year around the evils of the word "Winterval". Does he not watch QI? The sad thing is, he seems to be making some half-decent points, or at least attempting to participate in an interesting debate, but when his initial angle is "how crap is it that the word "Winterval" is being used to describe Christmas?", which it isn't, then it's hard to take him seriously.
I'm also a little aggrieved at BBC News for failing to point out the factual flaw in his statement. He said it led to situations such as councils calling Christmas "Winterval", schools refusing to put on nativity plays and crosses removed from chapels. OK, yes, he did say that, but when a large percentage of the readership are the sort of people who are predisposed to believe this sort of thing, isn't there a duty to point out that he is wrong? I might have written: He said it led to situations such as councils calling Christmas "Winterval", schools refusing to put on nativity plays and crosses being removed from chapels, although it should be noted that no council has actually called Christmas "Winterval" - the Archbishop made that one up. Less journalistic, perhaps, but less misleading, and notice I have actually improved the grammar from the original article by adding the word "being" (between "crosses" and "removed" - can I have a job, please, BBC?).
You know, while Wikipedia may have its faults, there is something reassuring about the way it works. If someone makes a contentious statement, a helpful if anally retentive single male will add a note saying "citation needed". If, after a while, no citation is forthcoming, the contentious statement is assumed to be bollocks and is removed. If, however, a suitable citation is supplied, the statement can be said to be a lot less contentious, and it stays. Gradually, in this way, some semblance of the truth about a given topic emerges through a multitude of fact-checkable statements. I often get frustrated that public speaking is not subject to the same process. Yes, uploading a speech as a Wikipedia article weeks in advance to allow its content to be verified would be time-consuming, inefficient and impractical, but it would at least be funny. OK, perhaps Archbishop Barry would only be made to drop the "Winterval" element of his rant, but imagine what would be left of a politician's speech...
Hello, I'm David Cameron[valid statement - see passport and birth certificate]. Thanks for listening.