The language that you use will more often than not show your stand. Especially when the issue at hand is a contentious one.
Let's see what the media reported on Day One.
A Bureau report on ZeeNews.com said 'Pesticides in Coke, Pepsi brands again: CSE'. [Link] Does that mean that there were no pesticide residues in the soft drinks in the 2003-2006 period, irrespective of whether someone found these contaminants or not?
The first sentence says:
Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on Wednesday came out with a fresh study claiming the presence of "pesticide cocktail" in 11 brands of soft drink giants Coca Cola and Pepsi.
The second goes on to say:
The revelation comes three years after CSE released its first study on pesticides in soft drinks.
Well, if it is a claim, then it is not a revelation for sure.
More confusion in the next para:
The new findings, publicised after testing 57 samples of 11 soft drink brands of Coca Cola and Pepsico collected from 25 manufacturing units across 12 states, claims that all the bottles examined were a "cocktail of 3-5 different pesticides" which was 24 times above the standards finalised by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).
If it is a finding, then how is it a claim? If you still want to call it a claim, you need to come clear and say that you don't believe in the veracity of this "study."
Daily News & Analysis did not sound so confused.
Three years after the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) reported high levels of pesticides in popular cold drink brands, killer chemicals continue to contaminate the drinks at unacceptably high levels.
Flat intro. [Link]
The Press Trust of India creed too thought the CSE study was a mere "claim." This story was carried in a number of papers.
Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on Wednesday came out with a fresh study claiming the presence of 'pesticide cocktail' in 11 brands of soft drink giants Coca Cola and PepsiCo, three years after the same brands were found to have contained pesticides.
The Reuters story was more forthright:
An environmental group said on Wednesday bottles of Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. soft drinks in India still contained traces of pesticide, highlighting weak food safety laws in the country.
The proper way to put a statement across is just to say said. When you say claimed, it is you who thinks it is a claim and hence you say the statement is a claim.
Here's a more direct and still neutral intro from an item on India eNews.com. The story is not attributed to anyone, though. [Link]
Three years after it shocked the nation with a report showing exceedingly large amounts of pesticide content in leading soft drink brands, an environmental organisation here has come up with a more shocking report: the harmful content has only gone up since.
Central Chronicle weaved its own story from agency creeds and came up with [Link]:
New tests have found that eleven soft drink brands, which in 2003 were found to contain pesticide residues, still contain a dangerous level of toxins, said the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on Wednesday.
We also had a business daily, Business Standard, with a flat intro [Link]:
Three years after its August 2003 expose on pesticides in soft drinks, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) today said the situation had worsened since that time, and the government had not taken any steps to check it.
One might have expected a business paper to show a corporate tilt, but at least in the main report it did not.
The Hindu was equally clear. [Link]
The report indicated the presence of an average of three to five different pesticides in all the samples, 24 times higher than the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) norms, which have been finalised but not yet notified.
Hindustan Times had a green stand in its 'Pesticide content has grown, says green group' [Link]:
THE PESTICIDE content in your bottle of Pepsi or Coca-Cola is now much higher than before and the government has not been able to do much to check it, says the Centre for Science and Environment.
Three years after the CSE first broke the 'pesticide in colas' story — leading to an investigation by a joint parliamentary committee — its director Sunita Narain claimed on Wednesday that the pesticide residue in soft drinks was 23 times the benchmark for bottled drinking water.
Well, the intro did not gell with the second para which called it a "claim."
The Times of India was not that confused [Link]:
Colas are under a cloud again. Three years after Centre for Science and Environment released its study on pesticides in soft drinks which was later endorsed by a joint parliamentary committee; fresh tests run by the NGO have again found pesticides in 11 soft drink brands.
