Felony cluelessness: Aiding and abetting

Here's another grievous offense against journalism that isn't -- originally -- the copydesk's fault. It'd be nice if reporters didn't turn in this sort of crap, and if metro editors would say "no" to it, rather than "well, it could be true" or "great centerpiece" or "hey, it's a good read." But the desk can always challenge it, and upon losing, take some middling satisfaction in having done its job.

Here, though, the desk apparently didn't even put up a fight. Worse, it played along, amplifying the story's worst points rather than trying to fix them -- or at least hide them or create a distraction or something. Hence the desk is guilty of aiding and abetting journalistic cluelessness. Sentence pending, but it'd be a good idea to pack your toothbrush.

Let's start with the centerpiece-slash-reefer on the reefers-only front. Notice the way a little lie -- or in some cases, an obvious hole that the originating desk didn't bother to fill -- turns into a big lie. Start with the breakout of "opposing theories":

"It may have been a mooring stone. The Romans used circles set this way. ... The size ... might make it ancient."

"Stone anchors have not been discovered in Florida. ... I'm not surprised at all what might turn up, though."

Cripes. Not only are these not opposing, they aren't even theories. One guy says it might be something. The other guy says stuff similar to that something hasn't been found in Florida. That's observing and speculating, not theorizing -- or contradicting. But it's not the scariest of the lot. Here's the lede of the 1A tease:

A local bicycle mechanic and bartender says stones found near the Gulf Coast are ancient anchors from biblical times. Archaeologists have mocked his theories -- until now.

Skip the adjectival piling-on (what, no modern anchors from biblical times?) and concentrate on the second sentence, from which it's pretty clear that "archaeologists" must no longer mock these "theories." Which is a long way from what the story says. One archaeologists talks politely of "interesting people" and another more directly of "nut balls." And the one pictured on the front page plans to return -- but if it's because he now believes the "theories," the reporter either forgot to ask him or didn't think the point was relevant.

John Saxer had a revelation 18 months ago: Many of the stones, big and small, that he studied around Pinellas and Pasco counties were ark anchors dating back thousands of years. Think Noah's Ark or massive ships from Atlantis.

OK, I'm thinking. And I'm thinking it's been a long time since Sunday school, but aren't Atlantis and Noah's Ark kind of -- well, contradictory?

The amateur archaeologist took his theories to the scientific community, which brushed him off as a kook. Undaunted by the rejection, Saxer, 55, pressed on.

Now he has found some acceptance. A California archaeologist is studying the stones. And he's impressed by the find.

And the eager reader is referred to the Metro front, where presumably support for all this awaits. Starting with the hed:

Discovery Could Rock Archaeology

Yep. Sure could. And then again, hed writer could be laughed out of the profession. Even by the standards of "could" heds, this one's abysmally dumb. But it gets worse in a hurry:

NEW PORT RICHEY - A tireless prophet with a salt-and-pepper beard and an inviting grin, John Saxer knows that mainstream archaeologists, journalists and folks in Tarpon Springs think he's nuts.

They reject his Greek mythology- and archaeology-based theories that Tarpon Springs is the center of the biblical Garden of Eden and the Tampa Bay area coastline was the seaport of Atlantis.

It's been a tough sell, acknowledges Saxer, a 55-year-old bicycle mechanic and bartender who was homeless for much of 2004.

Saxer has been ignored by archaeologists nationwide for the past 18 months, despite offering evidence of what he claims are 6,500-year-old stone ark anchors abundant on land near shorelines in New Port Richey, Holiday and Tarpon Springs. (This is one of the worst things about journalism's perverse relationship to science. Not all evidence is equal. Not all evidence should be treated as equal. Especially not "evidence" of stone anchors from Genesis or Atlantean times. Get it?)

"It gets scary when you're in front of the field," said Saxer.

I'm sure it does. But the real fun is about to begin. Here's the bait-n-switch:

Last week, Saxer had a breakthrough. He found a believer, the type he had sought for years, an archaeologist with credentials and financial backing.

This must be the guy in the tease, right? The "acceptance" that's finally reached the front of the field? Let's give the guy a listen:

"I don't believe any of the Garden of Eden theories, or most of John's views of Atlantis, which I did my master's thesis on," Donato said before his trip here. "I'm interested because the pictures are similar to anchors found at Bimini last year and to [5,000-year-old] finds in the Middle East."

Uh, OK. So no Eden, and not much Atlantis (how much, of course, we aren't told, which may in itself be a good thing). And, by the way, the 1A cutline is starting to have a distinct ring of fiction about it as well -- unless the assertion that the rock in question, rather than the unspecific photos, looks like the Bimini ones is something else the reporter left out in his haste.

Thus, the big question goes either unasked or unanswered: What is it the visiting maverick archaeologist is impressed by? What does he believe? That there might be an interesting find here? (Certainly possible, but hardly something that would rock the world of archaeology.) Or that it's time to put away the foil helmets and welcome back our Atlantean insect-robot masters? Without that, the readers can't tell the paper is (a) wasting their time with an annoying practical joke or (b) actually as dumb as it looks.