Reuters, one of the world’s most prominent news agencies, found itself at the center of a media controversy this week after it withdrew a video showing Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping musing about the possibility of human immortality. The four-minute video, which also captured a rare public meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, was distributed to over a thousand media clients before being pulled in response to legal objections from China’s state broadcaster, China Central Television (CCTV).
The now-retracted footage, originally released on September 3, 2025, took place during a grand military parade in Beijing commemorating the 80th anniversary of victory over Japan and the end of World War II. The event itself was a spectacle: more than 10,000 troops marched through the capital, accompanied by over 100 aircraft, tanks, and a display of China’s most advanced weaponry, including nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, drones, and laser systems. As the world watched, the leaders of Russia, China, and North Korea appeared together in a public show of unity—an image loaded with geopolitical significance.
But it was the lighter, almost surreal exchange between Putin and Xi that caught the world’s attention. In the brief, fragmented audio—lasting less than a minute and, according to Bloomberg, interrupted in places—Putin is heard, via a Russian-Mandarin interpreter, waxing philosophical about the future of human longevity. “With continuous advances in biotechnology, human organs will be increasingly transplanted... letting us live younger and younger, and perhaps even achieve immortality,” Putin said, prompting laughter from Xi. The Chinese leader responded, “Some predict that in this century people will be able to live up to 150 years.” The conversation, though brief, sparked fascination and headlines across the globe, with many outlets highlighting the leaders’ apparent optimism about science’s potential to rewrite the boundaries of human life.
Reuters edited the CCTV-licensed footage into a concise four-minute video and distributed it to more than 1,000 clients worldwide, including major international broadcasters and TV channels. Other agencies also shared versions of the footage, amplifying the reach of the unusual dialogue. However, the wide circulation quickly drew the ire of CCTV. On September 5, 2025, Reuters received a letter from CCTV’s legal team demanding the immediate removal of the video and accusing the agency of exceeding the agreed usage terms. The letter went further, criticizing Reuters’ “editorial treatment” of the material and alleging that it had led to a “clear misrepresentation of the facts and statements contained within the licensed feed.”
Reuters, for its part, stood firm in defending its journalistic standards. In a statement released after the takedown, the agency said, “We stand by the accuracy of what we published. We have carefully reviewed the published footage, and we have found no reason to believe Reuters longstanding commitment to accurate, unbiased journalism has been compromised.” The agency explained that the only reason for the withdrawal was the loss of legal permission to publish the copyrighted material, not any admission of editorial wrongdoing. “We guarantee the accuracy of the information we publish. We have carefully reviewed the published materials and have found no reason to believe that Reuters’ long-standing commitment to accurate and impartial journalism has been violated,” the statement reiterated, echoing the agency’s insistence on integrity and factual reporting.
The CCTV letter, while forceful in its critique, did not elaborate on the specific editorial grievances, leaving media analysts to speculate on what, exactly, the Chinese broadcaster found objectionable. Was it the content itself—the leaders’ musings on longevity and immortality? Or was it the global attention drawn to a casual, unscripted moment between two of the world’s most powerful men? The lack of detail has only fueled further debate about the boundaries of journalistic freedom, copyright, and the sensitivities surrounding state-controlled media in China.
Meanwhile, the context of the parade and the meeting between Putin, Xi, and Kim Jong Un did not go unnoticed by international observers. The event marked the first time the three leaders had met publicly, a symbolic gesture underscoring the growing alignment between Russia, China, and North Korea. As reported by multiple outlets, U.S. officials have watched this rapprochement with concern. The Pentagon chief, in response to the strengthening ties between Russia and China, stated that the United States has ordered the “revival” of its armed forces to “be ready,” underscoring the escalating sense of competition and unease among the world’s major powers.
Yet, while the leaders discussed the distant possibility of living to 150 years or even achieving immortality, the reality on the ground was far grimmer. As the parade unfolded in Beijing, Russian forces launched a large-scale drone attack targeting cities across Ukraine. The attacks resulted in dozens of civilian casualties, including humanitarian aid workers, a stark reminder of the ongoing violence and human cost of the war. The juxtaposition of world leaders contemplating the extension of human life while, at the same moment, lives were being lost in conflict was not lost on commentators and the global public alike.
The incident raises broader questions about the intersection of media, politics, and science in the modern era. How should news agencies navigate the complex web of international licensing agreements, especially when covering sensitive or unscripted moments involving world leaders? What responsibilities do state broadcasters like CCTV have when licensing content to foreign media, and how much editorial control should they expect to retain? The controversy also highlights the challenges facing international journalism in an age of heightened geopolitical tension and information control.
For Reuters, the episode serves as both a cautionary tale and a testament to the enduring importance of editorial independence. The agency’s rapid response and public defense of its reporting standards have drawn support from press freedom advocates, who warn that excessive restrictions on licensed content threaten the public’s right to know. At the same time, the incident underscores the reality that even the most established media organizations must operate within a shifting landscape of legal and political constraints, especially when dealing with partners in tightly controlled media environments like China.
As the dust settles, the world is left with a fleeting, almost absurd image: two powerful leaders, surrounded by the machinery of war, speculating about a future where humans might live to 150 or even forever. In the end, the story of the withdrawn video is less about the dream of immortality and more about the enduring tension between transparency, control, and the unpredictable consequences of letting the cameras roll.
