This is just not true, though. Astronomers look at color images all the time, in certain areas of research at least. Many color images in the media are copied directly from research papers, since image processing can be rather labor intense to be done just for PR purposes (mainly because you have to essentially calibrate the positioning and noise characteristics of the sensors from scratch -- the color assignment part can actually be done in vanilla photoshop). This is something I feel the article skipped out on explaining, that these false color images are actually research tools the same way that the grayscale images are.
It is true that they also look at a lot of grayscale images, though. Differentiating chemicals in nebulas or on the surface of planets isn't always necessary, and you can always take the simpler (but sometimes less useful, since it doesn't make full use of the human visual system) route of looking at multiple grayscale images. A lot of the areas where false color is most useful are well-trodded ground, so we don't necessarily need more images of the same objects when the existing body of research is already rich. And sometimes, a researcher includes an image in their paper just because they thought it looked cool, not because it was useful for the methodology.