Check out some recent examples from the science blogosphere that express the frustration of some scientists with the approach that Randy advocates. On the lighter side, Christie at Observations of a Nerd pointed out a biological inaccuracy in the latest episode of Psych, which really ruined her enjoyment of the episode (as well as that of many of her commenters).
On the more serious side, read over the beginning of this post from the DrugMonkey blog. A little bit of background - Matt Nisbet is a professor of communications who posts at Framing Science, and advocates an approach similar to what Randy is writing about in his book. Check out how this approach of "framing" your science message to your audience, in effect sacrificing some detail or nuance to get your point across, is described on DrugMonkey.
So what do you think? Which of these two approaches do you believe is more appropriate? Have these been issues for you as you write your posts?
Please leave your comments below.