Steep curves with no exceptions

Maybe it's because I'm also an English teacher, but I think responsible journalists should display more than a passing degree of familiarity with the English language ─ rather than sounding like they met it at a party once, but were too drunk to remember.

Some blunders are downright embarrassing. "Irregardless," the incestuous offspring of "irrespective" and "regardless," should only be found in the Ozarks playing Dueling Banjos. Thankfully most reputable publications have essentially banned it, and its increasingly rare appearance in print is usually by way of quotes from people who couldn't be expected to know any better ─ like Nolan McCarty, professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University. "The tone was going to be kind of nasty and partisan irregardless," he said of Condoleza Rice's appearance before the Congressional hearings into 911.

But as bad as the truly illiterate blunders are, it's often more subtle outrages against English that grate the worst.

Take "steep learning curve." Please.

When The Statesman.com wrote about quarterback John Chiles training as a wide receiver, they did so under the headline, "Chiles joins WRs on steep learning curve." Likewise, in a Canadian Press article about a video boxing game, the writer complained about its "steep learning curve." And New Zealand's Stratford Press praised Ben Whittington on having passed his bar exam despite the "steep learning curve." During the past 24 hours, Google reports about 632 media references to "steep learning curves," virtually all of them incorrect.

Oddly enough, the only correct use I've run across over the past five years occurred in an episode of Bones, when the director of the Jeffersonian, Dr Daniel Goodman, asks Dr. Temperance Brennan  if she is trying to manipulate him.

Goodman: Dr. Brennan, are you playing me?

Brennan: You know I'm no good at that.

Goodman: Hmm, thus far, but you have a disturbingly steep learning curve. 

While the phrase continues to befuddle our journalists, political analysts, and CEOs, the writers of a television drama manage to use it in its correct meaning, which is simply "to learn rapidly." 

Time measurements are always placed along the horizontal axis of graphs. The thing being measured is then placed on the vertical axis. So when we measure the number of skills gained over time, fast learners will have a very steep curve (learning much in a short period of time), while slow learners will have very shallow curves (learning little over a long period of time).

It's not particularly difficult, but the misuse is virtually universal. So much so that using it in its intended fashion now proves confusing. The better plan is just to scrap it. Ambiguity aside, it's become a tired cliche.

Speaking of cliches, what do you say we make a pact to rid ourselves of that ubiquitous use of the phrase, "and X is no exception"? The British Times Online begins its story on cricket in China with the line: "China is the holy grail for sports administrators and cricket is no exception." The American/Middle East publication AMEInfo quotes the manager of the Jumeirah Beach Hotel in Dubai as saying, "Dubai has become a year-round destination that offers something for everyone, and Ramadan is no exception." And in an article exploring Dr. Tom Ings' experiments exploring the ability of bees to outwit enemy spiders, Science Daily tells readers that the "ongoing battle between predators and prey has fascinated ecologists for decades, and Ings is no exception."

Aside from being overused, the phrase is also pointless. All it really says is that similar things have a common feature, and this particular thing is no exception. To make matters worse, the awkward construction tends to confuse the central subject.

• "China is the holy grail for sports administrators and cricket is no exception." The subject being described as a "holy grail" is China (not sports) and there is only one holy grail ("China is the holy grail"). By saying that cricket "is no exception," we are actually equating it to China and indicating that there are several holy grails of which cricket is one.
• "Dubai has become a year-round destination that offers something for everyone, and Ramadan is no exception." The subject being described as a "year-round destination" is Dubai. But despite declaring that Ramadan "is no exception" (and is hence equivalent to Dubai) there is no actual destination called "Ramadan.
• "[The] ongoing battle between predators and prey has fascinated ecologists for decades, and Ings is no exception." The subject which is said to have "fascinated ecologists for decades" is the "ongoing battle between predators and prey." Ings, on the other hand, is not an ongoing battle. We could at least regain grammatical integrity by saying: "Ecologists have been fascinated by the ongoing battle between predators and prey, and Ings is no exception." This makes "ecologists" the central subject of which Ings is legitimately a representative.
  

Admittedly we're all going to sprinkle our prose with cliches. We generally work like dogs and often don't give a tinker's damn about the story we have to cover. But irregardless of the steep learning curve involved, newspapers and magazines should aim for something higher than a grade five essay, and journalists are no exception.