It is also clear that such broadcasts which should be informative and clarify political opponents' thoughts concerning the issues,do not often meet this goal.

Take the second presidential debate - please. Dole had only one goal in mind and that was not to enlighten people as to how he would operate as president but, instead, took every opportunity to run a negative campaign against President Clinton.

He paid so little attention to his first question, that he called the source of the question a boy instead of a sixth grade student, sex not stated. What was on his mind was the opportunity to attack Clinton, rather than clearly stating his position on the many different issues confronting the American citizenry.

He never answered the question as asked and, in this viewer's mind, never had any intention of answering any question asked clearly and concisely but would, instead, enter any negative comment about Clinton and his administration that was humanly possible.

The sequence of answers to the first question by the two candidates set the tone of the debates. It became obvious that Dole would knock his opponent while Mr. Clinton would try to keep the debate on track and focused on the issues concerning the people in the audience.

On THIS WEEK with David Brinkley this morning, two Republicans and two Democrats were interviewed. First, the leaders of the House, one Republican, one Democrat, were questioned. Then, the leaders from the Senate, or vice-versa, were questioned.

The panel on This Week were just 30 seconds, maybe up to a minute, into the interview when the major problem that one confronts when two opposing politicians are interviewed as a unit became apparent. The problem interferes with every oppositional interview this writer has watched during the past 30 years or so and today wasn't any different.

The problem is obvious in every debate during presidential campaigns which has ever been televised and viewed by this writer. The writer is saddened and angered by the problem creating interference with information transfer from the candidates to the public. So, what is the problem?

On the above news shows this A.M. one politician would say one thing and the other would say it wasn't right and end by saying another thing was right.

Then, the first would come back on and say that what his opponent said wasn't right, that what he had first said was right.

Then, the second again disputed the first.

Do you see problem? Just how difficult is it to get facts from politicians disputing one another in this fashion? Who do you believe? Heck, can you believe anything either one says?

Then, of course, there were the interviewers who also made statements leading into their questions. When answering the question, politicians often point out the media personalities were wrong and/or had misunderstood. Not everytime, of course, but enough to cause one concern.

What the viewer is too often left with is a politician stating one thing as truth, then, his opponent stating something else as gospel, and, once in awhile, the interviewer bringing up some other tidbit as the truth. The problem is the viewer knows no more at the end of the session than what he knew, or thought he knew, at the start.

The same procedure, in this viewer's opinion, created chaos during the presidential debates, chaos in that the viewer did not necessarily know the truth following a question and the resultant discussion. Actually, one was seldom left with certainty of the truth and more with the impression truth was not part of the issue.

Just as a brief example, Dole stated that Clinton has not done anything in the war against drugs, that drug usage has doubled during the Clinton administration. However, if media reporting has been accurate, Clinton has taken steps against drug usage in youth and has been active in the war against drugs. And, according to Mr. Clinton and others, he has done quite a bit.

Logically, one man is not responsible for the doubling in drug usage by young people. Logically, Dole should blame the field of entertainment, sports figures, peers, and leading citizens who use drugs. Logically, the increase in usage by youths is more likely to be related to these, not the administration.

But, we just don't know absolutely the cause and effect relationships resulting in increased drug usage. Therefore, it is unethical and misleading for Dole to put the blame on President Clinton.

If one cannot read and only heard Dole speaking against Mr. Clinton, that person is very apt to believe Dole simply because he is supposed to know. And, if one cannot read, he would have heard Clinton saying basically the opposite of Dole. Now what?

Both are leaders of the nation, both have credibility due to their positions, and both speak as authorities and with the authority of their positions. With the men making nearly diametrically opposed statements, who is right and who is wrong? Which is stating the truth? Or, both are lying to meet their own ends?

Negative ads are more or less on-going debates between members of the opposition. One ad will make a statement about his opponent's actions or his character. Then, the ad ran by the opponent discounts the ad made by the first and makes statements against the first. So, what is the truth? Is there even an iota of truth in the ads?

As an interested party, the writer wanted to know whether or not Dole had any specific plans for carrying out any of the promises he is making. The writer was left high and dry and did not determine any factual intent of Dole, nor of his methodology.

The only certainty following the debate was that every issue to Dole was nothing more than a means of attacking Clinton and his administration. But, was the writer enlightened in regards to beliefs based on the truth and held by Dole? Not hardly.

And the writer is fairly certain that President Clinton has accomplished several important and needed legislative actions even though there was great opposition by the Republican party. That, or the media has not reported the truth.

If a completely neutral person had listened to the debates, watched every negative ad ran this year by politicians, watched every news show of the type mentioned above, do you think they would be quite knowledgeable now? Or, would they more likely be completely and inalterably confused?

If that same person had to place the deciding vote based only on facts, not on half-truths, no-truths, and anything but the truth, do you really believe the election would end with a clear winner?

Of course not. That would not be possible as there could not be a winner because the person would not be able to cast his vote under the conditions stated. The truth cannot be assumed by gut-feelings or through innuendos, much to Dole's disappointment and chagrin.

How can the problem be solved? On talk news shows, such as those mentioned above, it is the networks' choices as to how they run their shows. If they wish to confuse the public and not strive for the truth in their numerous broadcasts, there is very little that the public can do about that, other than demanding that the regulatory body take action.

Freedom of speech currently dictates that media personalities be able to state their feelings, regardless of any influencing of the public that is the result. Others may consider this highly unethical and that the networks should police themselves into just stating facts and/or always giving both sides of an issue equal time and treatment.

However, at this time in history, the viewer must always keep in mind that the newscasters or interviewers are not necessarily speaking the truth. But, the Congressional Record does. So, when in doubt, write and get the record of any politician in question.

The writer takes it back. The viewer can control media accuracy and never involve the bureaucracy. How? Don't watch the shows and cause their ratings to go down. Then, the shows will lose their sponsors and either modify the way the shows are conducted or go off the air.

The solution to debates deteriorating into a slug-fest, as was Dole's intent, is rather simple. Let's not have any debates. Every debate seems to have been rather worthless when exactness of information is concerned.

So, why don't we demand a better way to get the facts concerning any set of opposing politicians. Let's get to the person inside. Let's dissect them until the truth erupts from the facade presented to the public.

Let's also prevent attacks on opponent's characters and the use of negativism. That just leads to the choice being based on the lesser of the evils, not the best choice possible.

In other words, let truth become the name of the game, a foreign concept it seems to most politicians but they will either adjust or be lost in the fray. Either way, the public and our society will be better off.

Let's stand each politician, metaphorically speaking, naked before his constituency, the public, and make him answer questions concerning issues clearly and concisely. Put him on a podium behind a lecturn relying only on the thoughts bouncing around in his head.

The issues in any campaign are usually quite clear. At least, public concerns are clear. To assure the public's concerns are the focus, rely on the public as the debates did for questions of concern.

Now, for a slight format change. Rather than having the opposing parties on the platform together, each will be questioned on his own. He will face the people by himself and be forced to speak the truth.

Innuendoes, half-truths or falsehoods will not be tolerated. Any statement made must be backed up by the facts as represented by the Congressional Record or other means of proved documentation.

The people reserve the right to accept direct quotes in print as being the truth. As an example, it was in print that Dole stated that he did not believe nicotine to be addictive.

During the last debate, a gentleman asked Dole if he had admended his thinking. The answer given by Dole was, in essence, a masterful avoidance of directness. (Wonder if this had anything to do with the large contributions tobacco interests have made to Dole.)

Under the rules of the question session, Dole would not have been able to do anything but answer the question directly. Other drugs had nothing to do with the question. The man simply wanted to know if Dole still believed that nicotine was not addictive. The question essentially required a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer, not 90 seconds of rhetoric directed at his opponent, Mr. Clinton.

The writer must commend President Clinton. He did try to answer questions directly and clearly. He at least tried to stick to the issues that the audience was concerned with. A well-designed question session in future campaigns will assure this is always done.

Next, the audience should be made up of equal parts of the parties the opposing politicians are part of. No question coming from the audience should be based on anything other than verifiable facts.

A question might be: The [ ] paper stated on (the date) that (as in the above example) you do not believe nicotine is addictive. Do you now believe that - have you changed your mind?

Or, the [ ] paper stated that you received a contribution from (foreign source). Did you and was it a legal contribution?

Or, as quoting a newscaster, (such-and-such) stated you blame Mr. Clinton for the increase in drug usage, doubled as given in the news. What are the exact figures?

Additionally, why do you believe Clinton to be the cause rather than other factors such as sports figures and entertainment stars that have openly admitted to using illegal drugs? Please show us your research and conclusive evidence the Clinton administration is correlated to the increase.

Obviously, this would avoid either party from claiming responsibility for good things and the opposition the responsibility for bad things.

Also, as often as possible, the candidates during their respective question sessions, would be asked about the same issues.

After just hearing a heckler on the news, it is also important that any form of heckling not be allowed. It serves no useful purpose and would probably be set up by the opposition, anyway. Besides, heckling is usually done by an uninformed person with a very poor self-concept.

Of course, leaks concerning the questions and who would be asking the questions must be kept absolutely secret. Our capitol has more leaks than a barn roof a hundred years old.

Maybe not. Hmmm. Maybe it would be best for the candidates to know the questions so that facts could be given in the answers, not beliefs or stated beliefs, but facts supported with documented evidence.

If an opponent states he has always supported actions to control drug importation, then he would have the opportunity to present the record of his voting and/or bills introduced by himself. Note: Not his opponent's record but his own.

As the reader has realized, it will require effort to design the system in order that facts only are relied on. It would result in a monumental change in our political system as truth would become the base, not simple popularity or winning votes through character assassination (which often does not rely on the truth) but, instead, supposition or lies.

Parts of this, especially congressional documentation, could relate to negative ads. Anything other than the truth in ads is against the law at the present but it doesn't seem to apply to politicians. Maybe they, and prosecutors, have forgotten truth-in-advertising laws.

The question sessions would be designed to solve several problems that interfere with the public receiving other than the facts, not the least of these being that illiterate people need facts only obtainable through the spoken word.

Anyone meeting basic age requirements can vote. Of those, 50 percent cannot read. Therefore, 50 percent of the potential voting public cannot get facts from written information, such as voting records of politicians and bills that are presented to Congress and by whom.

These same people have the right to the truth. Newscasts and the numerous news shows could aid greatly in presenting facts to illiterate listeners if they chose to do so.

Literate viewers also have the right to view nothing other than factual information. This writer is fed up with misleading statements, falsehoods stated by politicians, attacks on opponents for the same things the attacker does; in short, the political game as it is played.

You see, Ladies and Gentlemen, it may be playing politics to elected officials but it is no game when it involves your money, your pursuit of equality, your pursuit of happiness, your pursuit of a decent life being affected by uncaring, 'getting-wealthy' politicians.

What say the primary goal for the next four years, no, the next century and beyond, be that we force politicians to rely only on the truth?

Let's begin assuring that the next millennium is one that is based on truth, justice, equality and acceptance of all Mankind.

Let us rid ourselves, and the rest of the world, of - - - hidden agendas'.