leaves editorializing as a potential niche not covered by CNN or C-SPAN and yet it has explicitly attempted to distance itself from what seems to be the only useful function they might by embracing the view from nowhere understanding of their function. So part of what is happening is the mainstream pretending to tell you about what you have already seen and know about from other sources (in even more detail with the internet). So the joke is on them because they still imagine they are bringing you raw data when they are actually telling you the third or fourth version of a story if you follow news seriously. The Fox approach is logical in this sense in that it recognizes its place in the media infrastructure--it is not informing you, it is bringing you the added value of Republican-friendly editing and newscopy that C-SPAN doesn't perform for you (although CNN increasingly does what it can). Still, it is important to remember that the Agnew/Buchanan strategy won elections in 1972 and 1980 and 1984 as well as the congressional elections in 2002 (with Bush running away from it in 2000, compassionate conservatism, etc.). Perhaps we need to consider more carefully what hasn't changed as well as what has. The Democrats have lost institutional control of Congress for one important change. The Democratic party tyranny thesis has lost a central aspect of the historical situation that once made it plausible. The claims for elite liberal conspiracy have shifted from government to