In 2009, I attended a course entitled Communicating Science. It was a real eye opener into the world of the media reporting academic findings to the public. There has always been an underlying current of a hate/hate relationship between academics and journalists. Such misunderstandings and miscommunication between the two have led to a certain level of resentment of academics towards journalists as findings are twisted. Even though it is very clear to me to see such distortion in the sciences, the same can be said about archaeology. Having awareness and drumming up excitement about findings is one thing, but communicating it and interpreting is another. The public are, after all, very prone to eating up any comments or quotes from the experts. So when new outrageous and somewhat doubtful claims are made, the journalists are quick on the mark to immediately sensationalise. This then leads to the problem where headlines do not reflect the true conclusions from those in academia. In the realm of science, two very important topics which are vulnerable to sensationalism are swine flu and climate change. But archaeology, of course, has its controversial topics. A perfect example of where this has taken place is the discovery of Ida, an exceptionally preserved fossil from Germany that shook the foundations of human evolution in 2009. The sensationalism that came from this prompted me and Dr Pia Nystrom to co-host a one off seminar on Ida last year.