It is very important to popularize science. Not only it contributes to higher level of general knowledge, but also creates more transparency. It is great that there are more and more researchers and journalists who share this view and link general public with the "egg-headed" (quoting my favorite Quantum Mechanics professor).
However popular science literature is tricky. One cannot (and should not) use too many equations if at all, and an extreme care must be taken about the wording. I have seen too many people working at CERN who still shudder at the expression "God's particle", and I personally am not very happy that for most people Quantum Mechanics is equal to the unfortunate Schrödinger's cat
Another very important aspect is author's integrity and professional ethics. It is author's responsibility to make sure that the information is correct, statistically representative and presented in a non-biased way. A famous example is that of Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize in Chemistry. He was a great scientist but he has not questioned his data showing the benefits of taking supplementary C vitamin to fight cold enough. Pharma companies took it from there. Despite of the fact that current evidence doesn't show any connection between supplementary C vitamin intake and relief of cold symptoms, many of us still believe that taking C vitamin helps to cure cold (a joke has it: "if you treat cold it is cured in 7 days; if you don't it passes in a week"). A lot of money is spent expensive vitamin complexes and nutrition supplements instead of fresh fruits, vegetables, meat and fish (vegetarian, vegan and other similar diets/lifestyle choices are a different story, of course). So here's to all the researchers and experts who know their statistics, explain things clearly and don't try to bias other people.
And now it's time for a story that inspired the discussion above and another example of how even most accomplished and celebrated scientific minds shall be taken with a grain of salt.