For instance is it better to offer an ambitious summary first, followed by a deep exploration into the data and methods to understand how any conclusion may have been determined?
I am loathe to put something out there might overstate a point that will be run with without a sincere understanding, but I also fear that if the details are provided first without a thorough explanation of the nuances, that there is a danger they will be used carelessly.
I suppose my question is, have others have found it preferable to start with a headline then support that headline with caveats, or to create a detective story and walk people through arriving at a conclusion?
It's little like the conundrum of TED Talks (or a much of science news reporting). A very highly produced talk will establish an argument for an important adjustment of conventional wisdom in some field, only to create new problems because to people outside of the field it sounds like the final word.