Both journalists and scientists complain about the disconnect that exists between the two fields. “Where’s the story?” the journalist asks. “You’re misrepresenting the data,” the scientist will say. The one group just can’t seem to communicate in a way that satisfies the other.

But in the second session of the conference, Jaymie Matthews of UBC’s Department of Astronomy and Physics talked about some research at what was supposed to be a “mock” press conference. After he finished, Richard Black of BBC News said his presentation was “as good as it gets” as far as science press conferences go.

Matthews spoke about research into another planet, 20 light years away, that was Earth-like. It could have liquid water. I’ll let you know right now that I’m a huge space nerd, so I absolutely ate it up.

But even a journalist in attendance who had never drooled over supernovas or galaxy clusters would find something interesting in this talk. Matthews tagged his presentation with what many journalists would designate as hook material: The telescope was Canadian. It was the best in the world. It was looking at a planet that could sustain life.

He even tied his findings to climate change, weapons of mass destruction, and something even more socially relevant: Star Trek. Filled with simple but accurate analogies, interesting trivia tidbits, and great quotes, Matthews’ talk got rave reviews from the audience.

But before you think it was the perfect presentation, keep in mind that we’re at a conference here — we’re all trying to learn, to get on the same page — journalists and scientists alike. It’s not the usual science press conference setting, where the journalist is guarded, trying to pick holes in research and point out bias.

Stephen Ward, a professor at the UBC School of Journalism, pointed out that if it were a real press conference, he’d be thinking, “This guy’s slick.” And he’d be skeptical about buying into much of it.

So, can a scientist ever make a journalist happy in a press conference? If it’s too complicated, aimed only at trained scientist, the journalist will complain that the scientist can’t communicate. If the scientist presents a clear, concise press conference, the journalist will question the validity, bias, or newsworthiness of the science.

Before I went into this session, I was hoping to get an answer to how journalists and scientists could please each other, and how they could communicate effectively and efficiently. I think I got my answer: They can’t.