Three headlines from a different but contextually related story.

Nature Science Update - Life, as it was in the beginning?
A new type of Earth ecosystem could be found on other planets.

space.com - Bizarre Creature in Idaho Raises Prospects for Life on Mars

BBC - Tough bugs point to life on Mars

Admittedly, journalists tend to focus overmuch on the speculative punchline of papers such as these.

So what?

It doesn't change the result of the paper(s). If you feel the need to dynamically raise the bar on criteria for life on Mars, fine. Because
at this point, it's essentially a question of interpretation.

Life may or may not exist on Mars today. There may have been unforeseen phenomena preventing the contemporary existence.
There may be thriving microbial communities just beyond our ken.

However, certainty is lacking. Until a Martian giraffe is hauled home
by aeroshell or intrepid explorer, we don't really know for sure.

Again, SO WHAT?!?

We live in a universe in which uncertainty is hardwired. To circumvent this, we invoke the power of probability.

So with what is now known, do indicies point toward or away from
life on Mars today. Again, the answer to this depends upon the
beholder and their interpretation of what is known.

I know what I think and i'm sure you could probably guess what that
is. I don't loose any sleep worrying about the fate of microbes on Mars nor do I have a need to prove or disprove. I'm not selling a book or working towards tenure. It's just a simple assumption based on what is known about the focus and related subjects.

This debate has so polarized "scientists in the know" that I sometimes wonder if some brains are still capable if accepting meaningful input or
if the pursuit of their answer to the question is monopolizing the processor. This is clearly at work on BOTH sides of the debate.

Back to the question of hype and the paper(s) in question. If the result of these papers indicates one result or the other, which would that be.
Clearly the result that is pasted on the headlines of the PopSci headlines
should be your answer. Obviously, obviously(!) not as strongly as the headline might indicate.

But like I said before, It doesn't hurt the case.

And for those who are dependent on the same sources of news that
they berate for hype, maybe it'd be a good idea to read the original paper before the metaphorical pie hole flies open and spews ASCII.