compare and contrast: two headlines, one story

Take a moment and see if you can spot the difference in the headlines in the Guardian and the Independent about a new national scoring system for food businesses.
Both headlines refer to the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme which becomes operational today whereby all food businesses will be rated and their score, from 0-5, posted online. It's just that, oh I don't know, one piece seems a lot more negative about it than the other one does.

From personal experience an EHO will rate your business as much on how deferential you are to them as the actual hygiene of the place. Or if they got laid last night. Or the weather. Their interpretation of the legislation is just that - their interpretation. There are guidelines for the EHOs to follow but many of them are quite vague because of the variety of different types of business that they cover and subjectivity creeps in to the assessment process.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if you did read both articles the Independent version of the story is more to my tastes than the fanciful "anything the public sector does is good" attitude of the Guardian piece which fails to take into account the resistance that this nationalised scheme has generated from councils (who already run similar schemes they set up themselves) and businesses who are afraid that their EHO will visit them the day after they argued with their spouse/siblings/parents/kids and mark them down on that basis for all the world to see.