Brian Anderson, a senior editor at the Manhattan Institute’s excellent City Journal, has fallen victim to the very phenomenon he ably describes in “South Park Conservatives” (Regnery, 191 pages, $24.95): the rapid evolution of the mass communications industry. It’s not as if the conclusions in Mr. Anderson’s short book are wrong; in fact, it’s thoroughly well documented and persuasively written. But the time lag of publication inevitably dates a book such as this, which takes as its subject current events rather than original ideas.

Because of my admiration for Mr. Anderson’s journalism, I eagerly anticipated “South Park Conservatives.” The author’s writing in City Journal, National Review, and the Wall Street Journal, to name just a few publications, has been consistently smart and far more insightful than reflexive liberal bashers such as Ann Coulter.

And it’s likely that “South Park Conservatives” will be among this season’s best-selling books, partly because of the clever title. But “South Park Conservatives” uncovers nothing that hasn’t been hashed out endlessly in the past year. Even if you agree with its premise, it reads like a week-old daily newspaper. The book looks backward at conservative media triumphs at the expense of speculating on potential future backlash.

Mr. Anderson’s troubles begin in the introduction, when he states the obvious: “With billions of ‘hits’ a year, the Drudge Report, which shows no bias against the Right, is impossible to ignore.” That’s certainly correct, but Matt Drudge, once derided as an amateur Internet hack, is now part of the mainstream.

Mr. Anderson’s abundant examples of liberal bias in the “elite media” are, by now, well known. He dutifully recounts the downfall of CBS anchor Dan Rather last fall after his flawed “60 Minutes” report about President Bush’s National Guard service. The campaign by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against presidential candidate John Kerry is also detailed, as is Newt Gingrich’s pioneering use of CSPAN 15 years ago to reach a new audience, the ascension of Fox News, the impact of bloggers on the Internet, and the proliferation of best-seller conservative books.

In a chapter about the crucial part talk radio has played in the GOP’s political success in the past decade, the author quotes political scientist William Mayer: “Liberals, in short, don’t need talk radio. They have Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw – not to mention [National Public Radio].” In 2005, this is a stale observation: Mr. Rather has been put out to pasture at CBS, Mr. Brokaw has relinquished his anchor chair at NBC, and, sadly, Mr. Jennings’s future at ABC is in question because of his lung cancer diagnosis. Even liberal mainstay Ted Koppel recently announced he’s abandoning his long tenure at ABC’s “Nightline,” putting that mainstream staple in jeopardy.

Mr. Anderson gives credit to Andrew Sullivan, a prolific “elite media” journalist who also posts a popular Web site, for coining the phrase “South Park Republicans.” Mr. Sullivan is a devotee of the animated Comedy Central television show, saying, “The next generation sees through the cant and piety [of the liberals the cartoon satirizes], and cannot help but giggling.”

Problematically, at least for Mr. Anderson, his example of a writer who has “revolted against the establishment” undergone a political conversion of sorts in the past nine months. Not only did Mr. Sullivan vote for Mr. Kerry, he also regularly blasts Christian conservatives for what he perceives as “zealotry” and pillories Mr. Bush for a lack of leadership. Mr. Sullivan, who is profiled along with radio celebrity Rush Limbaugh (who Mr. Anderson refers to as simply “Rush”), no longer appears to have much in common with the large number of influential “new media” luminaries that the author uses to build his case.

Mr. Anderson’s chapter “The Fox Effect” is embarrassingly sycophantic. I’m just as appalled as he is by the liberal media intelligentsia’s hysterical demonization of News Corporation’s Rupert Murdoch, and I also have great respect for Fox anchor Brit Hume, as well as his nightly panel of guests, which includes Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and Fred Barnes. But even though Fox is a welcome television alternative to CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, the station is not without its faults.

For example, the author takes at face value Fox’s motto of “fair and balanced” programming. Even the staunchest Republican knows Fox’s nightly talk shows are hardly balanced. Mr. Anderson quotes the popular conservative Fox personality Sean Hannity, who brags that he includes liberals like Patricia Ireland and Eleanor Clift on his program. But they’re regularly overwhelmed by such opponents as James Dobson and the Rev. Franklin Graham.

Similarly, Mr. Anderson calls the extremely popular Fox host Bill O’Reilly a “pugnacious Irishman” who’s become “the voice of populist conservatism.” Perhaps that was true before Mr. O’Reilly attained fame and extreme wealth. His “populist” phase has now been eclipsed by well-publicized temper tantrums and mingling with the celebrities he once railed against.

It’s true that the author can’t miss when describing the overwhelming liberal bias of academe, but his optimistic prediction that this will soon change – because of a more conservatively inclined college-age generation – seems off the mark.

Mr. Anderson triumphantly praises a handful of religious students in “South Park Conservatives” who describe the “chaos of campus life,” sexual promiscuity, and binge drinking. It’s been 30 years since my own undergraduate days, but aside from the liberal-induced “political correctness,” I doubt much has changed. Young adults are curious, intellectually and socially, feel immortal, and will inevitably indulge in hedonistic adventures, regardless of polls claiming, for example, that more now treasure their virginity.

“South Park Conservatives” was, I believe, written with the very best intentions, in an attempt to explain the diminished influence liberal newspapers, broadcasters, and commentators have today. But the book falls flat, and, worse, Mr. Anderson fails to address what lies beyond the current political environment. It’s not at all inconceivable that in the near future a backlash against Republicans in general will emerge – perhaps in the 2006 midterm elections – and Fox News, Mr. Limbaugh, and Ms. Coulter will suffer a slide in popularity.

Had Mr. Anderson taken a longer, more detached view of his subject, rather than reveled in the success of his own political views, “South Park Conservatives” would have real value. Instead, it reads more like a compilation of past victories and has little value to readers, conservative or liberal, who are searching for clues to the future.

Mr. Smith last wrote for these pages on Bob Dylan.