Skip

Another laughable graphic from CNN.com,
February 17, 2001 6:41 PM   Subscribe

Another laughable graphic from CNN.com, this time regarding "air rage". Didn't CNN.com just lay off a lot of people? How did this photoshopper not get the boot? Is it actually this hard to get good workers?
posted by jragon (14 comments total)

 
The real truth is that US companies don't like Canada, and want people to laugh at them whenever an oppurtunity is present. :)

Kidding.
posted by swank6 at 6:58 PM on February 17, 2001


My pet monkey has better Photoshop chops than the doofus who created this graphic.

AUGHHH! We're crashing into the giant maple-leaf birthmark! Save us! MAYDAY MAYDAY!

sorry. Couldn't restrain myself. :)

It really does look like a birthmark, all twisty like that.
posted by hanseugene at 7:11 PM on February 17, 2001


C'mon people - even the most creative PhotoShop guru would balk when given the following order:
"We need a compelling graphic about Canadian airline pilots and their troubles with 'air rage' - have it live in 20 minutes."

Can you imagine the pressure? Where would you even start? Let us cut this anonymous designer a bit of slack.


posted by aladfar at 7:32 PM on February 17, 2001


aldalfar: it's not the single graphic that is in question, rather the last few weeks' worth of laughable title graphics on CNN.
posted by tomorama at 7:38 PM on February 17, 2001


It's been going on for quite a while, sadly. The only result I could pull up here at MeFi was from about 3 months ago, regarding the Florida Debacle.

Aladfar, I do sympathize with the stress this person must be under, but come on. There are some very basic things that are wrong with the graphic that have nothing to do with how much time the person had.

To name a few:
1. Why make the flag's leaf look like a birthmark?
2. Why put the two black lines at the top and bottom?
3. Why have the airline pilots featured as an off-center, stamp sized, black and white image?

None of these silly design decisions have anything to do with a deadline; they simply mean the person has no clue how to design a graphic, let alone a graphic for such a well-known news site.
posted by jragon at 9:55 PM on February 17, 2001


"We need a compelling graphic about Canadian airline pilots and their troubles with 'air rage' - have it live in 20 minutes."




And the shift.jp'ised or K10k version, ;)


posted by holloway at 10:30 PM on February 17, 2001


Sweet. You're hired.

posted by mcguirk at 11:11 PM on February 17, 2001


dude. flying, eh? that's beautiful.

those cnn photoshop wonders look like crap i came up with when i was working as a web editor. there are several reasons i don't work there anymore, including the fact that i'm no goddamn graphic designer, and i couldn't utilize photoshop for shit.
posted by sugarfish at 8:28 AM on February 18, 2001


Holloway is my new hero.





You wouldn't believe how much that disturbs me.
posted by rodii at 9:17 AM on February 18, 2001


Lovely. I haven't laughed that much all day. Nice work, Holloway.
posted by evad at 9:46 AM on February 18, 2001


I understand about that kind of pressure, this kind of work is what I do for a living, but those graphics are just piss poor. If this is the best their person can do under those kind of deadlines, then they need a new person in the seat. l'd be willing to pitch in and help in exchange for a Greta van Susteren dream date.
posted by ritualdevice at 1:34 AM on February 19, 2001


It's not just the Photoshop folks, or even all of CNN.com. During the past 3 weeks, I've watched CNN fall from a well-oiled network to a gaffe-filled mess. Lead-ins that don't make sense, anchors introducing the wrong stories, and the inevitable "we're having some technical difficulties, we'll try and get back to that story as soon as possible." Watching CNN is now like watching the local newscast in Fargo, N.D. -- they mean well, but they obviously don't have the staff they need to do the job right. It's as bad as the first week of CNN in 1980 -- Ted must be so embarrassed.
posted by darren at 5:22 AM on February 19, 2001


The bulk of the layoffs at CNN were from CNN Interactive. And I think everyone that was left was reabsorbed into whichever channels they were handling. Then the employees from each channel that didn't work on the web side were told to start helping out. Definite recipe for disaster.

Combine that with the fact that CNN has historically offered the lowest salaries in the industry, and that you'd probably have to live in Atlanta, then yeah, I'd say it is that hard for them to get good workers.
posted by aaron at 2:29 PM on February 20, 2001



BTW, why is there a pink cactus on the side of the fuselage?
posted by aaron at 2:30 PM on February 20, 2001


« Older Bill Joy thinks the world will end   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post