Showing a photo of 8 years old itself is not a issue for me, as long as the phenomenon is still going on. The problem with this particular photo is that it seemed to be taken in a hotel lobby or something, and the two men in uniform were probably not monitoring online content.

Anyway, I'm not sure if Chinese netizens will win this cat and mouse game between them and foreign media---the game will only make the mouse smarter.

So what?

As the previous poster points out, if internet monitoring and censorship are still an issue, using an outdated picture is no big deal. In fact, an outdated picture accurately reflects the old thinking that typifies so much of CCP policy.

Is that all the anti-CNN people can come up with? "The story might be true, but the stock photo included for illustrative purposes is old." What a bunch of children these anti-CNN folks are. I'm sure the BBC would love to include a photo of actual Internet censors if they could.

BBC used to be blocked by Chinese gov, so they don't care to change the pic and also they don't expect much attention from chinese readers. Their chinese website has very limited resouces. They should be happy to see such criticism occur

Faking a picture based on global knowledge, isn't faking news. (If the image was 'manipulated' then it would be.

What it is however, is encouraging those of the masses with low literacy, and the idea that we need images to legitamise a report.

I agree with the last three posts 100%, (and believe it or not, that's not because my home is home to the BBC). I live outside of the country anyway, and that is because I appreciate the balanced and informed opinions living abroad (and being able to access the internet), enables me to have.

'Netizens', come on! Find something else to play with, or move on.

This is not a picture of an actual event and is not being used by the journalist in that way. It is simply an illustration to go with the story. It is not a picture of Nepali police beating up monks being passed off as a photo of Chinese police. Perhaps it is a little unimaginitive to use the same photo so many times but there is nothing more wrong with it than that. The story doesn't rely on it as any kind of proof or evidence, it is simply an illustration. Whoever made this shocking revelation is really clutching at straws.

"This is not a picture of an actual event and is not being used by the journalist in that way."

umm...I guess there is a bit of grey area here. The picture is of two police staring at the computer, and the caption of the picture reads "Chinese authorities monitoring the internet", suggesting the two police were monitoring the internet. It is a SMALL thing, I agree, but the image of two police staring at the computer/internet does have psychologiclal effects on readers. Imagine that the two police were just playing online games (as they may well be doing), and you took the picture to show/illustrate state oppression. I'm almost sure the two real guys in the photo didn't suspect the photo would be used this way when they agreed to have their photo taken.

Is that what government officials do, play internet games with each other? If so, I would be greatly unsatisfied paying taxes, to reap benefits from national security.

Maybe they were airbrushing some propaganda in Photoshop? Maybe they were looking at pornography? I strongly doubt that any of these possibilities are likely to be a given in an international press opportunity.

Chinese "angry youth" and "angry old", manipulated by CCP for decades, are a bunch of beaten underdogs and ugly thugs. When one says that he looks ugly and acts rude, he is furious and accuses you of using his photo taken 8 years ago (indeed, he wears a brand new mask on his face today).

first of all, this photo has nothing to do with internet censorships. as you can see, it was taken in a public place and the two guys are armed policeman, who are surely not responsible for "internet censorship".

secondly, using such a photo further strengthen the "evil" image of china in the western public and leads to unshamed lying and manipulations of china-related news stories such as the recent tibet riots.

so, lets face it, this BBC photo is lying and propaganda, it's not a small thing. a large part of the ignorance, bias and fear towards china was fostered by such "small things" in the past 20 years, thanks to western media

Tose who are criticizing the BBC for using an 8 year old stock photo to illustrate a 2008 news story are completely missing the point and instead are focused on nitpick details. So what if the stock photo is old? The important point is that China is censoring the Internet as much as ever before and everyone living in China knows this. The critics (or Chinese gov'ts) efforts to distract us with nonesense will not work.

Netizen:

You seem to hope that if you angrily repeat that the BBC is "lying" your statement will become true.

Let's try using objective reasoning instead. The BBC would like to have a photo to place next to their story on Chinese censorship. Why? It is customary and will make the story more eye-catching. The ideal photo would be of actual Internet censors, but that is impossible. So they use a photo of policemen looking at a computer. Is it inaccurate? Yes, because it does not show real Internet censors. However, it perfectly represents the concept described by the article, which is that Chinese state security agencies are actively involved in censoring the Internet. The fact that real censors don't wear those uniforms or use CRT monitors is totally irrelevant.

Those of you who think this is no big deal are the ones who are truly missing the point about propaganda and how it works. I mean, what is the purpose of having that image that is completely not relevant? Just to have an image? Let's think about why we want to have such an image. So that "evil" has a face! A picture is worth a thousand words even if it's not actually relevant. That's the whole point of why advertising works. In this case the BBC is advertising the idea that the Chinese government = bad. If it were journalism instead of advertisement, they would not need to post an outdated irrelevant photo. So much for freedom of press and free speech. Your standards are so low that you don't even know how to protect your own rights anymore.

The story is one thing, the photo is another thing.
You can appreciate the story, and you can also appreciate an updated photo.

It's like posting a picture of some redcoats with a discription saying "The British army is still fighting in Afghanistan". Sure they are still fighting in Afghanistan, but you would want a more current picture than one showing a bunch of funny looking wig-wearing dudes.

I think Pfeffer's on to something. The photo is 8 years old. When I saw it, I thought they were PSB officers in the old green uniforms that were phased out from the Spring Festival of 2001. Could it be that this photo shows two regular PSB officers at a computer and was taken in the summer of 2000? The BBC needs to update their stock photos so that the police are wearing the modern blue uniforms.

What if the stock photo is old? It's not just that it's old. The picture, to people who have actually lived in China, is just two army soldiers staring at a computer screen. They might be playing a game, or exploring how to use the Internet. Using this picture to accompany such a serious news report makes the "news" lose its otherwise well-deserved credulity.

"...but you would want a more current picture than one showing a bunch of funny looking wig-wearing dudes."

And they use more current photos, of course. In the case at hand, a more up to date photo is harder to come by - if they had one they'd use it. In the meantime, the old one serves the purpose. It certainly doesn't invalidate the internet monitoring reports that it accompanies.

Btw Pffefer, are you still actively pursuing a career in deflecting online discussions that criticise China? Perhaps you could send the BBC a picture of yourself at the computer to replace the stock photo. What do you say?

Anyone who thinks this is good journalism has their head up their ass.

(I suppose some wiseacre will try to bring up Chinese journalism, as if it has any equivalence.)

The facts don't matter as long as they support the greater good ! Hmmmm, where have we criticized that before ?

Dear chris "defender of the CCP" waugh_bj. Those are PAP boys (Wujing to you who is familiar with all that is Chinese), and their uniforms remain pretty much today as they were in that photo.

stuart: Right, it certainly doesn't necessarily invalidate the report.
xiaosiwole: Also right, it does harm the credibility of the report.
tom: Yes, you are indeed right, not good journalism, but i am a wiseacre; prepare.

What is the purpose of a stock image? And more to my point (which follows), should we really be fed stock images? And who is the intended audience? Self-confessing to siding with the BBC, now justly retracting a little and allow me to extrapolate. Personally I find, such articles, together with similarly outdated and inaccurate escorting images (like that in question), typically effect me in this way.

1. Interpret headline. (first glimpse of sensationalism)
Q: What is the underlying agenda of this media corporation? (Unsure*, go to 2)

2. Interpret image: (Basic credibility evaluation of source)
Q: Does image add any credibility, if so, why, could it be falsified? (Reliable? go to 3)

3. Interpret article: (Utilise knowledge of vested media agenda)
Q: Is it lazy journalism, or actually grossly misleading?

More often than not, big media is spun in such ways to divert from the real issues, fostering exaggerated and/or imbalanced perspectives. Baring in mind inclinations we all have to believe what compliments our feeling on a particular morning, 'news' is a subtle but powerful force for manipulation of fears, desires, needs? Why? There must be tangible benefits to those who push buttons? An instigated monopolization of thought?

Media corps/services, (public & private), should be regulated, but lets face it, they are not. So now what? Well, obviously we should not rely on media to tell us what is going on in the world. No way! A national media 'service' like The British Broadcasting Service, providing disservice and feeding on xenophobic tendencies, east and west?

BBC chief editor : 'Do you think this image is OK'
BBC sub-editor : 'Why not? Nobody cares, monkey see, monkey do!'
BBC chief editor: 'More tea?'

Think what you will, (and apologies for long post), but isn't falling onto a bandwagon of, anti-this, anti-that, 'net-zoids' just as irresponsible, as believing lies? It works both ways.

*Step 1 note: Detect sensationalism? Skip 2-3, and disengage from collective thinking.

If an outdated stock photo is what passes for "biased journalism" these days, the Anti-CNN folks must be running out of material to chew on.

Pfeffer:
I don't get what would be wrong with a picture of Redcoats for a story about modern British intervention in Afghanistan, if you had no more recent pictures, and the broad issues were still the same.

If this drives angry Chinese traffic to the BBC, it will be a good thing though, because the BBC's Chinese news-site is pretty good, and the angry netizens might learn some things in between posting abuse.

If you Baidu "警察上网" then you can crop a photo of 2 uniformed officers standing next to a plainclothes policeman in front of a computer. The image is taken from a television station in Guangzhou.
Click "Zoom In" 6 times and you'll get an idea of what the photo would like without the "资料" (stock footage) designation and Guangzhou network logo.

James - very good wiseacring.

Thanks Stuart, I feel some other good points had been made, so I should also give it a crack, probably at the risk of sounding a grandiloquent novitiate.

Even the BBC makes me feel tired these days, can you tell?

"In this case the BBC is advertising the idea that the Chinese government = bad."

No, the implication is that the Chinese government is doing things that are bad. Is this picture of these two men in front of the computer inherently evil in some way? It's just a picture of some army men at a computer. Sure, it's wrong to say they're monitoring the internet, and the BBC should rightly change that, but to say that this image itself advertises the idea that the Chinese government is bad is just pushing off suppressed feelings onto a more easily attacked target.

JL,

If you don't see anything wrong with a picture of the redcoats dipicting British troops in Afghanistan, then I have nothing more to say. I for one think it is laughable.

Chinese netizens posting abuse? I am sure many of them do, just as many of foreign netizens do too.

Stuart,

Do we even know what those two Chinese paramilitary policeman were doing? Were they monitoring Internet acitivities as one BBC article indicates or were they peeking at way more interesting acitivities at the hotels?

Me? Deflecting online discussions that criticize China? Nah, hardly. I am just having a lot of fun with you guys. What? Can't take what you shell out?

"Faking a picture based on global knowledge, isn't faking news. (If the image was 'manipulated' then it would be."

This just makes me laugh. What's journalism and news about?

If the BB could have sayed it as it is, explain why they couldn't get hold of supporting image, I will really take a serious thinking on issue.

And I would like to see real evidence, real quote with real full names, real photos that actually show what's on the screen.

Using a fake photo to mislead readers visually is poor journalism, period. If BBC doesn’t have a real photo, just omit it, and report the article by itself. Using a fake photo pretending to be some sorts of proofs is just plain wrong.

For those readers who do not think critically and are already prejudiced at China, they can be easily misled by BBC. We have to remember that even a thief can sometimes do good deeds; a good person can do horrible things at times.

The real question: Are there any solid proofs other than a fake photo? If yes, please show them to the readers. If no, investigate, and come back later. Stop being lazy. In Canada, Journalists are rated unworthy to trust, and ranked even below those politicians.

peace

"Faking a picture based on global knowledge, isn't faking news. If the image was 'manipulated' then it would be."

It is not. Example.

Headline "Atlantic Fish Stocks Depleted"
(Image depicts fisherman baffled with no fish in shot)

Global knowledge: We are all to believe that consumption of fish is escalating with rising population.

Does this mean, what we are seeing is the depletion of fish stocks, or solid evidence? So, as follows.

Headline "Chinese Police monitor/control/restrict/securitise Internet" (My apologies but I am not a translator).
(Image depicts a member of Chinese Authorities using a computer)

Global knowledge: Every government of every sovereign nation, or otherwise, will use technology to monitor peoples actions, be it on the internet, or in real life (CCTV). Evidence? No. Neither are evidence.

So what? I already stated that I don't believe we should use stock photographs. Obviously they have their place, (advertising), not news, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is faking news per say.

If the problem is the fact that China now uses LCD screens and has also updated their uniforms. Could we ask Hu or Deng to send over some more recent images, or better still invite photographers for tea at the PSB.

Just to reiterate..

1. Stock images are used, (obviously), when no other image can be used. (Think of a newspaper in the olden days).

2. If being upset by everything is the way things are, why not try to address the issue, rather than complain at the result.

I know the anti-cnn.com will not "win".
An 8 year old photo would not be a problem for us either. I wonder if they can get any new ones. It's just a kind of fashion to accuse the western media, instead of our own today.

BBC maybe use a 8-years old photo,

but BBC is telling the truth!

Is there a spy free country in the world?

I think it just too much exaggeration. If no this exaggeration in the first place, then I agree using old but indicating photo is not a big deal.

What I find funny is the anti-cnn guys are still focusing and giving a rat's ass about CNN, BBC, and all the so called mainstream bullshit.

Sure, I always had some inkling about the brain-washing nature of the mainstream media, but I never ever could have imagined just how fucking deep the rabbit hole goes. Sure, it's sane to remain skeptical, but I noticed the skeptics never has anything of real value to refute any of the real documented conspiracies (I didn't say theories. Basically the "let them not be named" is telling you what the fuck they're going to do to you, LOL), most goes "you fucknig nut! It's a consiracy, HAHAHA" (rolls eyes).

It's just we're so conditioned from birth by the system to be trapped by the mind-matrix. Our minds automatically shutdown, when confronted with the revelations of truth.

I would not break a sweat at all for anything CNN, or the BBC has to say. These guys are the western equivalent of CCTV, probably a lot worse, mainly because they act like they are the beacon of truth ... Real news and all that. I guess you can say the same about CCTV. But with Western media the shock is a lot worse, since we were lead to believe in all the bullshit about freedoms and all that. It turns out there is this massive web of evil behind it all. It's all absolutely mind-bogglingly insane!!!

Just look at what's on the front-page of CNN.com. LOL.

Anti-CNN? LOL.

Think I'm bullshiting? If your government loves you so much why would they even contemplate creating a false flag operation, by putting spec-ops guys on fake Iranians ships, so they can provoke a war with Iran by attacking their own ships (and let's see which main-stream media reported that)! And let's see the commie Chinese leaders contemplate something like that...

If they can lie to you about wars, a very very serious issue, they can lie about just anything.

Instead of devoting energy to worthless bullshit like anti-cnn, why don't you clean your own house first? We can then unite and destroy the you know what...

I think you can take issue with an out-of-date stock photo in a news item.

What gets my goat is anti-cnn accusing the BBC and others of lying. As my grandmother said, when you point the finger, three point back at you ...

Right, that's what I'm saying. These anti-cnn guys are lame, because all one has to do is turn on cctv, to realize how hypocritical everything is.

But the point still stands about NWO and the matrix of evil and lies.

Two wrongs don't make one right. CCTV is rightly laughed at by Chinese citizens, but the defensive nature of the aboe posters is just astonishing.

For illustrative purpose, there is still racial tension in U.S., so is it ok for you guys if a "news" report uses a 50 year old picture of an African American domestic worker in a white family to illustrate racial tension? Or better, to use the photo of the famous bus riot?

Beijing Olympics is spectacular, with a picture from Sydney Olympics. Do you guys think it's ok? As someone pointed out, the original picture was in a Guangdoing news station news about policemen using modern technology and Internet, here it is being used for news that Chinese policemen are monitoring Internet.

Fake photo is fake photo. Fake can be in different ways, not just cropping, altering. To use a photo taken in one event for purpose of news in another event is also faking.