The article's headline states, "Why a scientist killed a bird that hadn’t been seen in 50 years" and waits until well into the article to mention, "Filardi stressed that, among Guadalcanal locals, the bird is known to be 'unremarkably common.'"

In this way, this article, which is trying to explain why the bird was killed, seems to recreate the problems that led to people being mad in the first place: giving the impression that this is a rare bird that no one had seen in 50 years and burying the fact that this isn't true. The majority of this article makes it seem like this was a bird that no one had seen in years when that simply isn't the case. It is just that no scientist had seen it in years. Big difference.