I have only myself to blame, but the TV was set to MSNBC when I heard the most extraordinary interchange.

The host was the news bunny called Tamron something or other and the two guests were "once crossed-eyed Republican strategist guy whose new lenses correct for it now" and "gal who proves the supposition that nearly every Democratic strategist is on holiday in August." What ensued was an hypothetical about the not as yet held memorial to Senator Kennedy.

Ordinarily the "he said/she said" is the hallmark of overtly lazy production values which pass for "news" these days, typically carried on until an abrupt ending phrase suggesting it could have gone on forever were it not for the pressing matter of advertisements waiting impatiently in the wings. No more time? Awww.

Infuriating as it is for anyone who remembers the "who, what, when, where, how" of crackerjack reporting to suffer this "fair and balanced" mantra which is neither, this particular exchange entered the realm of the surreal and took up digs in its residence hotel.

But it was not Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" on the tube or some gem from George Orwell playing out as intended in the imagination. This was what freecreditreportdotcom ponied up scarce 2009 dollars to sponsor. It was the supposed news. "He said/she said" in the future tense.

Just as in Lewis Black's routine about overhearing the phrase "if it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college," I was left with the building blocks of some future aneurysm. Which isn't to say that it always requires the tired old convention of "two posturers passing for reasoned discussion," but in the future tense, to get one there.

Take this more or less "straight news" piece from the week just ended.

Many savvy readers read of the decision, all but official and released, by the DOJ not to proceed with pay-for-play charges against our governor, the honorable Bill Richardson.

Mazel tov's all around, to be sure, but the "aneurysm is in the details" as Mr. Black might add. True, they couldn't make the case, and you might think that a still reasonable person's cynical read might add "not proving" is not the same as "innocent."

I'll be a sport and entertain that notion along with you if you're buying the next round but that's not where I was heading.

Simply put, the facts of the matter are that "... CDR Financial Products Inc., of Beverly Hills, Calif., got two consulting contracts in 2004 worth about $1.4 million to advise the state on a large bond issue for building infrastructure. The president of the company, David Rubin, a major Democratic contributor, had given more than $110,000 to two political action committees controlled by the governor from 2003 to 2005."

Now I'm no math genius but, innocent or guilty of provable charges, our state did business with a firm which overcharged our citizenry 12.727% of the final invoice.

They could have funneled it to Sinaloan drug cartels, taken every last blessed executive with family to Honolulu, or donated to a New Mexico PAC; I'm not really interested in that level of knowledge of the facts, though it turns out to have been the latter. The cash was flushed and we picked up the tab, lack of pink underpants and green bologna notwithstanding.

The news reports breathlessly declaimed "no charges," especially here in New Mexico.

But, savvy reader, we know the real story was that "if it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college."