(This will be one of those tiresome threads about a language quibble. I'm well aware that most people don't give a damn about this sort of thing; this thread is for the harmless amusement of those who do.)

I noticed a year or two ago, that a number of journalists had begun to misuse the expression 'cannot be over-estimated' (or under-estimated, or over/under-emphasized). They now use it to mean that something SHOULD NOT BE over-estimated, rather than to mean (hyperbolically) that something is of such magnitude that it would be impossible to over-estimate it - in other words, they use it to mean the opposite of what the term logically, and conventionally, means. So, for example, they'll say something like, 'The danger of exploding cellphones cannot be over-estimated', when their point is that the danger is not great, and therefore SHOULD NOT BE over-estimated.

Today, I heard the worst one yet: a journalist on CTV, re: the American-Iranian prisoner exchange: 'Its importance cannot be over-estimated OR under-estimated!" So, if you're considering its importance, your estimate of its importance can only be correct.

Are you getting this in the UK and elsewhere, or it this just a North American thing?