Monkeypox appears similar to the shingles blisters. It's not exact, but it's a common comparison that appears in most any literature I read on the topic. It sure as hell beats the verbal description which is "macular, then papular, then vesicular, then umbilicated rash." (translated: flat disk-shaped rash, which then raises up filling with fluid, forms a zit/buboe/vesicle, then deflates looking like a ring, then scabs over over the course of ~2 weeks). No one can decipher that shit without a dermatology residency. So, you use pictures.

If you're a journalist, you also need pictures. The new cases are rare. The specific people you have absolutely no access to because of privacy concerns and because they're likely quarantined aggressively wherever they're being treated. So, you have to go look up an old picture and use it.

Lazy ass journalist did lazy ass journalist things. This isn't anything other than standard operating procedure for low-effort "science journalism." And of course, they didn't bother to cite their source of the image. Because these people wouldn't recognize science if it walked up and slapped them in the face, and they don't care either.