Talk:Gavin Esler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This page appears awfully at pains to point out Esler's impartiality, i wonder if this article was written by the BBC press office. I thought everyone has a personal bias one way or another.

I agree. The article reads like a biography from a BBC website. I note that a Google search does not reveal the term "neo-con apologist" being applied to Esler. The only reference it unearths for Esler being a "left-wing anti-American" is a generalised comment on a blog regarding the BBC. Without sources I don't think these quotes can stand.

Even if these epithets are real, they show nothing about Esler, or his alleged lack of bias. It's common practice for entities taking criticism from two sides to imply, by mentioning both directions of criticism, that they cancel one another out. This isn't the case, not least because it gives no clue as to how much criticism of either sort has occurred.

On a separate point, I do not believe Esler's interviewing style on Newsnight can be accurately characterised as "confrontational". He is far less confrontational than Jeremy Paxman, and not noticeably more so than Kirsty Wark. In any case, currently the article attempts to link this spurious claim of being "confrontational" with even-handedness. Even if the premise were true (I don't believe it is), the conclusion would not follow.

As a consequence of these considerations, I am removing the final paragraph.

Stuarta 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I should also say that entry was extremely poorly punctuated. While it still isn't very well written, I've tried to eliminate the various run-on sentences.

Stuarta 16:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)