But that's an entirely different argument, Good Soldier, introducing malice into the commissioning or writing of a review. Having said that, an editor has to apply his or her criteria to commissioning and might well, in the case of, say, a book making a highly controversial point give it to a reviewer who is known or likely to take the opposite view. But that makes for healthy debate - the author already has a platform - and I see nothing wrong in principle, again provided there is absence of malice. An editor who did apply malice would be a poor one in my view, but there are so many people watching what the media are up to that I suspect it would be exposed.