The writing is reporting on a sensationalist article praised by peers and famed by media debunked perhaps completely by an other article with a potential motive picked that is not too far from what we all experience in the sensationalist world around us but now sweeping into peer reviewed articles too. What sort of evidentic proof you need that measures the incresing (observe the meaning of this word please when referring to Homer) incentives for being sensationalist exactly? Is there some sort of objectic measurement for dramatic storitelling you miss? Isn't enough considering this piece what it is as an educated speculation on what has happened here? Must not come up with a theory before have all the empirically evidence forming an ironclad around it?