How do you get a right of reply in The Spectator Australia? On February 6, The Spectator Australia ran a one-page piece about alcohol issues by Christian Kerr, a Crikey alumnus now with The Australian. It was a lively polemic, with perhaps some bias betrayed by the headline (“The health fascists’ war on drinking falters”) and further use of the term “health fascists” towards the end of the piece. In between the “health fascist” bookends, Kerr reported on a leaked drinks industry document in which the Brewers Association of Australia and New Zealand apparently make some inaccurate assertions about those (including myself) who are seeking to reduce alcohol problems in Australia.

Kerr is an entertaining journalist who did well to get the leaked document and is entitled to express his views. But the industry document is woefully wide of the mark in a range of areas; and surely there should be some way of responding to the industry’s errors and some of the other views expressed in the article?

The Spectator’s attack on prevention was maintained in an editorial on February 20, with a wildly inaccurate claim about the National Preventative Health Taskforce.

So how does one respond? The Spectator Australia offers no information on how to make contact with the editorial team here. Letters to the Spectator relate to the core UK edition, not to the Australian section. After the initial piece I phoned the Australian distributors who were unable to provide me with an Australian point of contact, but advised me to send an email to the editor in London, marked for the attention of the Australian editor, Tom Switzer. I did this and have had no response. I have also had no response to a further email to the editor seeking advice as to how one might respond.

I have been a reader of the Spectator for nearly 50 years. As with many other publications, I don’t agree with all the views expressed, but it is always entertaining and has a history of elegant writing. In the 1797 eight-volume edition of The Spectator, which has been one of my proudest possessions for decades, the great Joseph Addison discusses the dangers of inaccuracy (“heedless, inconsiderate writers”) and criticises “barbarous and inhuman” lampoonists who make claims about others without justification. He cites the example of Sextus Quintus who, on becoming Pope, punished a misguided satirist of the day by ordering his tongue to be cut out and his hands to be chopped off.

That may be a somewhat extreme approach for journalists on the Spectator — but surely there should be some way that a publication purporting to be Australian can provide a right of reply?