They say that if you can remember the sixties, you probably weren't there. True enough, but even I remember the "nattering nabobs of negativity." Problem is, they never existed. That's right, folks - they were inventions, works of fiction. The phrase "nattering nabobs" originated, I believe, with Spiro Agnew, vice president under Richard Nixon (Agnew would've been president after Nixon but managed to get himself thrown out of office first). The phrase referred to the so-called liberal press snapping at the jackboots of the Nixon reich. At the time I was quite pleased that there were nattering nabobs - they were the voice of the free press, weren't they? Our guarantee that the grand old USA was not going to become a police state. Or was I, even then, in the barricade-storming days of my youth, just another dupe of this insidious fabrication?

Frankly, dear reader, I have absolutely no idea. Compared to the present day, the press may have been marginally more liberal. The networks were old-fashioned, neighborly, little ol' giant corporations back then. In bed with business interests, perhaps, but not themselves owned by huge conglomerates like General Electric (they may have been leaned on by their advertisers, but at least the networks weren't actually contractors for military hardware).

Newspapers, of course, were more important back then. Without going into the McLuhanesque catechism, newspapers offer in-depth coverage and allow for the discussion of more complex issues. And there were more of them, and more of them were independently owned (as opposed to being owned by some guy in Australia).

But here's the weird thing: although this not-so-liberal media from the old days has never shaken off its Spiro Agnew patina, believe me it ain't liberal no more. I know this from experience, having spent the last two months watching countless talking heads on my 999 channels, mostly in a futile attempt to spend quality time with my wife (call me old-fashioned). She has always been a news hound, but having spent twelve years without a tv (for the sake of the children) she now seems to have gone completely over the edge. The fact that this is an election year certainly doesn't help. Nor does the fact that her last tv had about seven channels.

Here's what's on: The McLaughlin Group (usually four against one - and them four aren't liberals or even independents), Inside Politics, The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Hannity & Colmes, and my personal favorite, Special Report with Brit Hume. The last show features Brit Hume, Tony Snow, Mort Kondracke, and Fred Barnes (of the Weekly Standard) on the right, and Mara Liasson (of NPR) on the left - but now that she's off having a baby she's been replaced by Jeff Birnbaum of Fortune on - that's right! - the right. (There's Rivera Live of course, but Geraldo seems to have become obsessed with non-electoral matters these days: Jon Benet Ramsey, prisons, Las Vegas and, help me, the Olympics. But at least he invites an equal number of conservatives when he does do political shows.)

Don't any of these other aforementioned talking heads want anyone who doesn't already agree with them actually watching their shows? Not even one person who thinks a little differently to lure in the unsuspecting viewer? I am an independent who started out the year wondering if Al Gore would ever get out of his Clark Kent mode. I could at least relate to George Bush; he seemed like a regular guy (hey, he used to take drugs too). But even I cannot watch these shows any longer. Most of these commentators are, to put it mildly, out of their friggin minds!

They gave George Bush's speech at the Convention an "A" ; Al Gore's speech got a "C." And every single commentator whined about how Al was too much of a policy wonk and stepped on his applause lines (even though anybody with any sense could see what a great idea this was; watching at home, you didn't have those excruciatingly long applause pauses, which make most speeches seem so fake and so insanely slow).

Later, we had to listen to the phony debate on debate for days on end. Then we were told that Gore was being silly and paranoid about "subliminable" advertising. And yesterday, the first day of Bush's announced "focus on the issues," was spent talking about Al Gore's mother-in-law and his dog (now if he'd called his mother-in-law a dog, that would be news).

And what about Tony Brown's Journal on PBS (which was itself once a nest of nattering nabobs)? No more. When Reaganomics cut spending for public television, guess who those stations went to for their money? Not the flower children and university professors who watch their shows, let's put it that way.

Wait a minute, I forgot the New York Senate race. After the Hillary-Lazio debate, the media, en masse (including that bastion of liberal ferment, The New York Times) said that Lazio had trounced the First Lady. Even Jeff Greenfield (who put what in his water?) lost it on his new Friday night show (entirely devoted to the upcoming elections). He had an entire panel on the air who thought she'd lost the debate. (Unless I'm mistaken, I thought people paid to talk about this stuff on tv were supposed to tell you what they think happened, not what they wish happened.) On and on about how Lazio showed he wasn't just a lightweight but was actually senatorial. I myself had started out thinking Lazio would be charming and Hillary shrill. Not so. The minute Lazio started talking, I thought: "Uh oh." And it got worse. Much worse. (Check back with me next week and we'll see who got the most mileage out of that debate - and who's right, those deluded commentators or yours truly.)

What the hell happened, anyway? Was the press overrun in the eighties by heartless, self-interested yuppie journalists and newscasters who had no compassion for the problems of the poor, the oppressed, and the underdog? As appealing as I find this scenario, it's irrelevant. Larger, most sinister forces were afoot.

For a while I put the decline of the liberal media down to the rise of the celebrity newscasters. If you're pulling down a couple of million bucks a year, are you going to be a rabid radical? When I heard that that nice old bloke, Ed Bradley, had spent a million dollars on air-conditioning his apartment, I looked on his investigative reports with a huge grain of salt. But it wasn't the news stars that were the culprits.

No, It's not the newscasters - perennial patsies of the conservatives - who control news policy, it's the owners (it's the economy, dummy). And who are they and what do they want? Well, they're multi-billion-dollar corporations and their interests are not those of the average working stiff or inner-city mother. (And it wouldn't make a wick of difference if Peter Jennings and Dan Rather were secret adherents of Pol Pot. )

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Scrooge McDuck is writing the scripts we live by (more of this in an upcoming column). And if you think Big Brother is just a TV show, think again, babe.

P.S. Almost forgot the most important thing: the Kiss!!! I've heard this issue discussed upwards of fifty times on tv and everybody, and I mean everybody, dismisses it as scripted, not spontaneous. But just watch the tape. Closely (it'll be played again, for sure). According to my wife, Coco (and probably a few million other women who are not paid to give their opinions on tv), Tipper does not know that the Kiss is headed her way. She offers her cheek and then is slightly horrified ("in front of all these people!") and has to be pulled into it. Watch the tape. If that was planned, the DNC must have Meryl Streep on the payroll. And the ensuing embrace..... Coco pointed out to me that that Al Gore actually closes his eyes. Believe me, that wasn't planned either. He ain't that smart.