I don't think the "usual" way of reporting science arises from a wish
to keep the information confined to a 'reserved few" as Larry puts it.
Rather it is so that the initial judgement can be made by the
scientists' peers.
I'd make two points here.
One is that too many "discoveries" have been made public without this
judgement - two of many examples are cold fusion, and proclamations
about consumption of all or, part of the earth's resources before
2000. Such happenings lower the estimation of science in the eyes of
the public and the pay-masters.
Second, once peers have passed judgement and the discoveries have
become part of the framework of science, it is up to the more
articulate members of the scientific community to the public (and
fellow scientists outside their specialties).