To be fair the articles span a year and of the three articles mentioned I'd already read two of them when first published.
The reason why I read two of these articles again so recently is that I gave a short science communication lecture earlier this week to some first year computer science / electronic engineering (some are also doing maths / business studies etc) students on writing for scientists or for non-specialists.
One of the things I wanted to highlight (exceptionally briefly) was an aspect of stories about technology. Sometimes they're just about informing you of some new gadget, sometimes it's a 'hooray for tech, any minute now we'll be flying around in jetpacks' and sometimes it's "DOOM!!!".
Doom stories can warn you against doing something (or against failing to do something) - incidentally I assume all tech stories about Facebook are now doom ones - or they might encourage you to take action and ask companies to increase encryption etc.
As I was speaking on Hallowe'en I picked some doom stories to share and realised that two of my four favourite examples mentioned the same company. Of course two of them didn't, and they're below.
"I offered to sign an NDA ... I don't want to rely on Medtronics for something as essential as my heart."The article also references a report that the SFLC wrote which suggests that, between 1997 and 2003 there were 212 deaths that had arisen from device failures occurring in implantable medical devices from several companies.
In these reports Medtronic is accused of writing overly favourable articles about their product, with the usual ghost writing goings on (ideal for Hallowe'en).
Referenciness - the four examples of doom.