Absolutely not a subtweet about a particular thing, more a general thought – I sometimes think archaeologists could try to be more understanding of press coverage

(except the usual 'stumble upon treasure' trope, that can get in the bin).

Firstly, and I cant stress this enough, you have absolutely no control over the headlines, subheaders or even to an extent the slant of the reported story. You engage in good faith and sometimes reporters don't portray it the way that you thought it would go.

Secondly, the usual way of discussing a theory is to absolutely lash the caveats at it – so lots and lots of 'may be reflective of' or 'possibly' or 'suggests'...

That is absolute kryptonite to the media, and sometimes it can even kill a technical report.

I often think we've been trained to hide behind caveats so if anyone challenges our interpretation you can always point towards your 'Giant Wall of Possibly'. Sometimes I've finished reading a report with no sense at all of what the archaeologist *actually thought the site was*

So media presentations are often much more definitive and surer than we are comfortable with. And they may zero in on a particular line of interpretation that is only one of a number of theories because that's what most interests them (see point 1)

I'm not saying we can come out and say any ole nonsense, but I do think we could be a bit more generous as a profession when archaeology hits the headlines.
If we get too afraid to go public with exciting results then it leaves a vacuum that will be filled by Ancient Alien scams

Theories are there to be debated and disagreed with, I wouldn't have it any other way. But that doesn't necessarily always require full on attack mode.

I understand that there are always exceptions to this though, especially where identity is concerned.

Finally a shout out to those journalists like @BiddyEarly @NickyRyan_ and @philipbromwell who have a genuine interest in archaeology and heritage – their reporting reflects it.