What do you mean by presentation? Truth is.....I rarely even see material for popular consumption follow that strategy (hypotheses, results, findings). It actually tends to jump straight to the findings, partly because of the way they present issues......meaning they don't really address any single experiment. Instead, they condense the history of a field into more of a bullet-point presentation.

Also, I find it hard to believe that scientists can't find the time to address the limitations of their work in an 30 minute or hour long tv spot.....or a mass market book that ranges between 200-500 pages. I say this because there actually have been books that I think do this quite well while others do not.

In academia, I undestand why a presentation glosses over criticisms because these issues can be addressed in the question/answer session (I've still seen academic presentations address possible limitations/alternative explanations....depends on the time someone has), however, you can't do this with a tv series/book because of the lack of inteaction, so you should anticipate the questions and citicisms someone might have and address or mention these problems.

Presentation as in the presentation of academic work at an academic conference. 

Presenting academia for popular consumption is pointless. As posted above, that video demonstrates why this is the case. 

TV spots....TV spots are what editors of shows want you to know, not how a scientist presents his work. 
Books are not papers. Papers are where you find academic work. 

The issue here is that you are mistaking 2nd hand sources as being the actual research. This couldn't be further from the truth. Scientists don't have egos. Editors and program schedulers have to think about ratings on the other hand. The best scientific show I can think of is Through the Wormhole as that tends to offer very rounded arguments with quick overviews by the actual scientists involved in the research. Nevertheless though, it's a far cry from the actual papers. 

I think you are clearly not reading what I wrote. I clearly distinguished between academic work that is published in journals/texts and the popular presentation of it to the public in tv shows/mass market books. Fact is, the vast majority of everyday people are not going to go to an academic conference and they aren't going to read an academic journal.....which was kind of the reason for my first post that you responded to.....which is that there is a fundamental difference between the work you read in an academic journal and the work you see coming off a mass-market press.....I was never talking about academic conferences in the first place....which I think is pretty clear looking back throught the posts.

If scientists want people to understand their work, they need to make a better effort at explaining it to common people (and I think scientists are clearly becoming more cognizant of this fact....just look at how many more books are being printed on the subjects). I would wholeheartedly disagree that popular presentations are pointless. Truth is, there are some very good examples of it out there, particularly in print.

"I find it hard to believe that scientists can't find the time to address the limitations of their work in an 30 minute or hour long tv spot"

Scientists don't have the above opportunity. Ever. If NatGeo make a documentary about the Higgs Boson, it's not 30 - 60 mins dedicated to the scientists who made the discovery; it's 30-60 mins of whatever the folks at the studio want to air. 

Did you watch the video above? There is little to no point in giving someone who has no education in a field a detailed analysis of a discovery as they don't have the means to understand it. 

Scientists only want the people that matter, other scientists, to understand their work. There's no point in getting a plumber to understand the details behind nano-magnetics; it's not scientists responsibility to educate the public to a very high standard. You can't explain a lot of it to common people. On this very forum I've had people argue against anthropogenic climate change whose arguments were utter shit because they didn't have the necessary education to realise the fundamental mistakes they were making and to get them to see said mistakes, I would have to spend hours educating others. 

As I said, Through the Wormhole is a great show that offers leading concepts at a very understandable level, but still it's understandable to people who've been educated somewhat in those fields. However this is now somewhat digressing into issues with the education system rather then the root of knowledge. 

To keep it short, I'll just say all this is getting away from my main point, which was that popular presentations of science....the ones people are exposed to....are very different from the science that takes place in academia, in terms of the expreseed tentativeness, certainty, alternatives explanations, criticisms, etc. Because of this, I understand why the public is often confused about the meaning of scientific studies.

Agreed. However I think what the video highlights is that a lot of skeptics of science simply don't have the knowledge to fully understand many concepts. That is why certain trains of thought e.g. like the OP, exist, and incorrectly though. As was stated by Feynman, some things simply have to be accepted when the person only has entry-level knowledge of a topic whether iit's magnetism or global warming. 
As for the video all I can say is if you study magnetism at a degree level, you may appreciate what he is saying a bit more as it is very true.