It is sadly rather common for writers about business and economics to forget that many of their most common concepts started as metaphors. This leads to abuse of common phrases like “bottom line”, which does not mean the point in your negotiation at which you will not give way, or “soft landing”, which does not mean an arrival on a runway at all. A more entertaining possibility is that writers whose sensitivity to this point has dulled will produce mixed metaphors, in which incompatible specimens are paired.
Monday’s Business Post delighted discerning readers with a heroic example: NEW HUBS TO CUSHION EXODUS FROM DELTA. How, one might wonder, does one cushion an exodus? Would you want to cushion an exodus? And supposing you did, would a supply of new hubs come in handy? The entertaining possibility might also occurr to the suspicious reader that the headline would make just as much, or maybe more, sense if you threw it all up in the air and took whatever landed: New cushions to exodus hubs, exodus to new hub cushions, new cushion to delta exodus from hubs…
The usual solution to problems of this kind is to read the story. But the story started with an intimidating intro (first paragraph) running to 53 words. This is usually regarded as too many and this was a good example of why. It announced a statement and then said it was wrong. What was wanted, and need not take up too much space, (I used to do this sort of thing for a living) was “China will remain a manufacturing centre despite some factories moving abroad, because most of those leaving the Pearl River Delta are only going to cheaper provinces further West, analysts say.” Still a fairly boring story, as most business stories are. I wouldn’t change the headline, which is very entertaining.
LOL.
It’s hard to find educated people for this topic, however, you sound like you know what you’re talking about!
Thanks