An article by John Waters appeared in the Irish Times on Monday 24 June 24 under the headline “25 Years On,Hot Press Is Losing Its Way”.

In it, Waters levels all sorts of accusations at Hot Press – accusations, incidentally, that were conspicuously inaudible when he appeared alongside Niall Stokes on a Rattlebag tribute to Hot Press on Radio 1 a few days prior to the publication of his piece.

Of course it goes without saying that Niall Stokes doesn’t need me to stick up for him. He’s a big boy and he knows how to look after himself. Nevertheless, I’m getting increasingly fed up with reading about how Hot Press is no longer as well written or relevant as it used to be. To be honest, I find it insulting that anyone could say that about a magazine that boasts talented young writers such as Peter Murphy, Kim Porcelli, Olaf Tyaransen, Jonathan O’Brien and Stuart Clark.

True, the last interesting article John Waters wrote – that illuminating interview with Charles Haughey - may have been published by Hot Press in the early ’80s, but this does not, as John Waters seems to assume, mean it was the last interesting article to appear in Hot Press.

Waters begins his piece by saying that the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hot Press is a nostalgic moment for him. “I got into journalism through Hot Press and, given how things were at the time, wouldn’t have got in any other way,” he drones. “There are people who will find this a reason to be less than grateful to Hot Press, mostly the kind who nowadays read or write for the magazine.”

Magnificent. One paragraph in and he’s already being defensive and sweeping in his generalisations. He’s right of course, but it is staggeringly small-minded of him to assume that only people who read or write for Hot Press find his musings wearisome.

Waters goes on to say that “Hot Press is today crippled with a shallow neurosis developed in response to the exigencies of a particular moment of conception, resulting in an often embarrassing datedness in its obsessions with sex, political correctness and socialist politics.”

If I had the foggiest idea what the hell he was talking about, I would probably argue that he’s wrong. Not least because most of us who write for Hot Press were mere toddlers at the particular moment of conception I think he’s talking about. I can’t speak for my colleagues, but I was far more interested in climbing trees and riding my bicycle in 1977 than I was with sex, political-correctness and socialist politics.

A politically correct, sex-obsessed socialist Niall Stokes may be, but this does not or never has prevented him from allowing others to express contrary opinions in his magazine. I am neither politically correct nor a socialist and it’s probably fair to say that I disagree with about 75% of everything Niall Stokes says. Having said that, I would imagine the feeling is mutual. (Truth be told, it’s probably more mutual on his part than it is on mine.) Despite this, any articles I submit to Hot Press invariably appear in their entirety and are only ever cut because – like the scribblings of John Waters – they’re invariably too long.

But while Mr Stokes and I don’t always see eye to eye, no other editor that I have ever worked for is as fiercely loyal to his staff, or allows his writers such free rein to express their opinions, no matter how wrong he thinks they may be. Surely, seeing as he owns the magazine, it is only fair that Niall Stokes is allowed the same courtesy to say whatever he likes.

I can see how John Waters might accuse me of brown-nosing the boss here, but the fact of the matter is that I have no need to because I am no longer dependent on Hot Press for my income. What I am dependent on Niall and Hot Press for, however, is the opportunity to get two or three pages in a widely read publication to write pretty much whatever I want whenever the mood takes me. In this day and age, few if any other publications afford such opportunities to writers, let alone young ones with no formal training who are still finding their feet.

“Unless you’re a leftie, lesbian or belong to another short-listed minority group, you get no respect in latter-day Hot Press…” waffles Waters untruthfully, before rounding off his piece by complaining that Czech popsters The Plastic People Of The Universe have never been mentioned in the magazine and fittingly ending on the word “groove”.

The only answer to that, John, you bonkers hepcat you, is that unsolicited contributions are always welcome at Hot Press. Just don’t forget to include an SAE in case it’s not up to the high standard we expect these days. Some would say we’ve lost our way, but others would be more inclined to argue that we’ve just moved on.