The work is being done and the finds are being made. It is largely a problem of publicizing the information to a public audience that by-and-large has very little information to contextualize the finds in.

For instance, the recent discovery of the burial place of Richard III. A moderately well read person likely has some familiarity with Shakespeare's play about that king. So, a reporter can have some fun writing an article busting some popular assumptions. "No, Richard III did not have a hump, but he did have scoliosis".

When it comes to African history, a western layman tends not to have much information. The fact that mankind originated in Africa is a well known bit of information, so discoveries of hominid remains lend themselves to articles of "discoveries shed light on human origins".

However, to make a hypothetical example, scholars found a site where the Benin Bronzes were found, a reporter might have to explain that Benin city is not related to the modern country of Benin, explain what the Benin Bronzes are, why they are important. Still, a newspaper reader in the West might not feel that discovery to be as relevant to him/her as the Richard III discovery.

There are several reasons. The first being that there is less interest among the general populace in it, therefore fewer networks will report it as it doesn't help their ratings. The second being that archaeology is harder to do in Africa, due to remoteness and lack of functioning governance in many parts of the continent can cause problems with how artifacts are handled and whether they can be removed from the country to be studied. Lastly it's harder to get grants to do it the first place, due to lack of support from the donor class who are more interested in european and near eastern cultures. It's not that the cultures deserve less attention, it's that the field doesn't get the political support from research institutions because it doesn't drive more donations.