Authority

1. Advertising Age is a respected trade journal in its field.  They have a reputation to keep up, since if they start providing bad information, people will no longer read or subscribe to their magazine.  Thus, this source has good authority.  The journalist who wrote this story has a smiliar motivation to be accurate and convey good information (i.e. keeping his job).  This source has decent authority.


2. This source is of questionable authority.  There is no author listed.  the website, "energy fiend, the caffeine fix" is an unknown organization. Digging around, in the "About Us" section of the website, it says that Energy Fiend is "managed by Exis Holdings Ltd, a small internet publishing company."  There is no reason given for why this company has chosen to create this website or what knowledge they bring to the field. This source has questionable authority.


Accuracy

1. This article is at least easily verifiable.  It says that the source of its market share data is Beverage World, so it would be possible to track down that journal and verify this information.  It also contains several quotes from Coke and Pepsi executives, For an article in a trade journal, this has good accuracy.

2. This article has questionable accuracy.  It may be that they have accurate informaion concerning market share of soft drinks, but they do not give a source.  So you literally have no idea where this comes from. Plus some of the conclusions at the bottom make no sense and seem to have been written for a different article.


Objectivity
1. This reporter is certainly making an attempt to be objective, allowing executives from both Coke and Pepsi to opine on the significance of the statistics in the headline.  The reporter is also being objective by talking about how Coke and Pepsi have each had their problems in the past.

2. The simple layout of soft drinks has no apparent bias, assuming they have the data from somewhere.