First off, I'd like to point out that this sub itself is an outlet for public history. I'm also a museum curator as well as a frequent answerer of questions. I just want to make it clear that what you're asking here is "are you people dumbing down history?"

Academic history is, by definition, written for an intended audience of academics who have a high level of understanding of the broader topic already and are looking for more specific information, nuanced interpretations of that information, and the like. Public history is, by definition, an attempt to reach the general public, who typically do not have that high level of understanding. Is it "dumbing down" to avoid specialized language or to explain new vocabulary? To give an introduction to what may be a new subject area for most viewers?

To be sure, a curator or teacher (or AskHistorians answerer) can go too far in the other direction and flatten complex situations while overcorrecting for the assumed level of understanding of their audience. Not everyone can be great at their job. But these days, the practice of public history is focused on not just imparting the proper number of facts, but presenting new perspectives and getting the audience to think and empathize with people they might not have thought about before - the opposite of dumbing down. To many, this appears to be "dumbing down" or pointless "political correctness", but it informs and enriches us and our understanding of the past immeasurably.