In January（一月）/ˈʤænjuˌɛri/, a vivid（生动的）/'vivid/ television（电视）/ˈtɛləˌvɪʒən/ graph claimed that almost a thousand（一千）/ˈθaʊzənd/ animals had vanished from North Cape. Its golden（金色的）/ˈgoʊldən/ background, awesome（引起敬畏的）/'ɒ:sәm/ title, and dramatic angle（角）/'æŋgl/ made viewers applaud（拍手喝彩）/ә'plɒ:d/. Rina could appreciate（赏识）/ә'pri:ʃieit/ the design, yet a slight（轻视）/slait/ shadow（阴影）/'ʃædәu/ behind one column made the exact（精确的）/ig'zækt/ boundary（边界）/'baundri/ of the data hard to see. The author（作者）/ˈɔθər/ called the result mankind（人类）/mæn'kaind/'s greatest failure; to Rina, that sounded extremely（极端地）/ik'stri:mli/ subjective（主观的）/sәb'dʒektiv/ rather than scientific.

She ran a scan（审视）/skæn/ and traced the graph to a botanical（植物性药材）/bә'tænikәl/ blog. The site had used a clone（复制品）/kloʊn/ of an older image, allowing careless readers to dismiss（不予考虑）/dɪsˈmɪs/ its original warning. The figures covered the fifth（第五）/fɪθ/ survey area, not the whole region, and the source described animals moving elsewhere—not extinction. Rina began to seek proof（证据）/pru:f/. A glance（一瞥）/'glɑ:ns/ at the footnote revealed that the study involved gender（性）/'dʒendә/ differences in one frog population, a vital（生命的）/'vaitl/ detail the viral post had ignored.

Rina telephoned the study's author, who had become a premier（总理）/'pri:mjә/ expert on autonomous（自治的）/ɒ:'tɒnәmәs/ wildlife cameras. “You ought to（应该）/ɔt tɪ/ state explicitly that our evidence cannot support that argument（论点）/ˈɑrgjəmənt/.” He was willing（乐意的）/'wiliŋ/ to explain, despite a stomachache（胃痛）/stomachache/ and recent toothache（牙痛）/toothache/. His answer was frank: nobody should accuse（指责）/ә'kju:z/ the local farmers or pretend（假装）/pri'tend/ that the data proved a disaster.

The real story was still disturbing（引起烦恼的）/dis'tә:biŋ/. A fragile（易碎的）/'frædʒail/ fence had altered an animal route, and dusty（灰尘多的）/'dʌsti/ camera cases produced rough（粗糙的东西）/rʌf/ images. However, new pictures showed a mother bow（弓）/bәu.bau/ toward two young animals—perhaps a nephew（侄子）/'nefju:/ and niece（侄女）/ni:s/ from the same group—before they disappeared beyond the hill. A local guide had watched the herd surf（海浪）/sә:f/ across a shallow stream and pass a familiar pole. These clues could not confirm everything, but they did reflect（反映）/rɪˈflɛkt/ a pattern worthy（杰出人物）/'wә:ði/ of further study.

Rina requested approval（赞成）/ә'pru:vl/ to publish a correction. Her editor gave the desk a pat（轻拍）/pæt/ and said, “Personally（亲自地）/'pә:sәnli/, I believe the site must protect its reputation（名誉）/.repju'teiʃәn/ even if readers prefer a shocking tale.” They replaced the graph with a clear theme（主题）/θi:m/, valid（有确实根据的）/'vælid/ scales, an obvious（明显的）/ˈɑbviəs/ source line, and an explicit（详述的）/ik'splisit/ note about uncertainty. After one final reservation（保留）/.rezә'veiʃәn/ about the title, they chose to proceed（继续进行）/prәu'si:d/. Comments of anger（忿怒）/'æŋgә/ did arise（出现）/əraɪz/, but others thanked the team for being honest. Rina did not weep（哭）/wi:p/ over lost clicks. Throughout（在整个过程中）/θruaʊt/ the process, she learned that media achievement（成就）/ә'tʃi:vmәnt/ means resisting a clever trick when the evidence points otherwise（否则）/ˈəðərˌwaɪz/.