If the worry is that journalists are influencing the public politically, it is far too late to worry about that. The worry, instead, should be how to correct biased or political reporting directed to influencing the minds of the public in favor of one party over another or one politician over another.

Often it is rather subtle but not always. Take Barbara Walters' in-depth interviews of the two political candidates last year. It was stated the interviews "might very well change the way you vote". At the time, Mr. Clinton led Dole in the polls by 15 percent or more, depending on the poll.

Logically, the change predicted was votes would be changed from Clinton to Dole. That was the writer's analysis of this statement along with others made by the commentators of ABC's 20/20. He resolved to watch the interviews in an attempt to determine if the interviews would be biased in favor of Dole.

The Doles were asked very easy, virtually pointless questions as far as what voters needed to make a decision politically. Plus, when asked about tobacco interests making large contributions to the Red Cross (headed by Mrs. Dole), the Doles averted the question by changing the subject to Clinton and the increase in drug use by the public.

The Doles lambasted Clinton instead of answering the question. Walters never made even a feeble attempt at getting the Doles back on track. Any question asked that gives the opportunity for one politician to discredit an opponent is basically biased reporting, particularly when the interviewer doesn't get the interviewee/s back on track.

The Dole interview was filled with family values and "at home" Dole, even though Dole rarely went back to his hometown until the campaign.

He and his wife weren't asked any pointed questions concerning his or her political stands or convictions. And that was, in part, what this writer was interested in.

Not so the Clintons. Both were asked pointed questions and, whenever possible, Walters led into each question with a negative aspect of the Clinton administration, whether a validated aspect or not. It was political question after political question which was totally different from the interview of the Doles. Plus, Walters essentially demanded answers.

However, the Clintons handled every question very well, including when 20/20 showed the clip of Clinton talking about having tried marijuana.

In the summary of the Clinton interview, the interviewers stated the fact that Clinton was very skillful at handling hot questions. The manner in which this was said had to be watched and listened to as the impression the commentators attempted to leave was that Clinton was skillful enough to fool the public.

As a network, ABC also seemed to be biased (right along with Walters) in favor of Dole during the campaign. It was seldom one heard any negatives against Dole and the Republican party while negatives against Clinton and the Democrats were in just about every newscast.

Dole was interviewed and positive clips were shown far more often while, during the same cast, there was usually a negative clip of Clinton. If the writer had known during the year the extent of the seemingly biased reporting that was to be aired, he would have recorded every incident. But, who knew?

As it got closer to election time, the biased reporting had led the writer and people he talked to, into watching the news with a basic understanding any ABC network newscast would be biased in favor of Dole and the Republican Party.

As an example, Dole was on every newscast asking, "Where's the outrage?" Then, there was his making the statement that if Clinton and the Democrats were thinking like he was (Dole), then why shouldn't he (Dole) be president? (The latter came from Walters' interview of Dole.)

Following the positives of Dole (largely fabricated), a relatively negative aspect of Mr. Clinton would be shown. Watch for this during the next presidential campaign fiasco.

Watch for the technique now. (March 19, 1999 -It is still being used and has been all through the Republican Congress domination of Congress and the party's intent of destroying President Clinton.) The modus operandi will be to show a positive aspect of the favored candidate or party (Republican) coupled with a negative aspect of the politician in disfavor (Democrat).

The problem with any form of reporting biasing on TV (and if a person is biased, it will show up in their reporting) is far too many people depend on what they believe to be accurate, unbiased reporting since they can't or don't read.

The attempt to influence doesn't stop with reporting on TV. But, the concern of the article was with TV journalism and more and more politicians turning to it. Will the biasing ever be as flagrant as the interviews by Walters? That remains to be seen. And, of course, if Walters does any presidential candidate interviewing, then there will be extreme bias.

But, you can bet if a particular political party staying in power or getting into power has advantages for a television network, the attempt to manipulate your thoughts will be in every newscast in some form, whether it be flagrant or subtle, whether through the spoken word, or body language, or through techniques such as in the above examples.

In other words, Ladies and Gentlemen, worrying about another politician becoming a TV commentator is small potatoes compared with a biased network. It's like worrying about a small amount of rust on your car when the engine has just gone out.