INSTIGATING LOGIC
Controversial, or just outrageous?
By JARED PUTNAM Union Sentinel Editor

Being over the top, outrageous, or whatever you wish to call it, has become commonplace, even popular, in society today.

There may be no better example of this than in the media.

Consider the examples of ultra-conservative Ann Coulter and ultra-liberal Bill Maher. While the two are on polar opposite ends of the political spectrum, both are very controversial figures who never hold back.

Maher recently made headlines for saying that more people would live if Dick Cheney had been killed in Afghanistan assassination attempt, while Coulter drew fire for referring to presidential hopeful John Edwards as a "faggot."

As much as both of them like to talk, hopefully they are also familiar with the phrase "jumping the shark." It originated as a metaphor for the tipping point in which a television series runs out of quality ideas and experiences a dramatic decline in quality, usually due to nonsensical plot material.

Fittingly enough the term comes from the Happy Days episode in which a water-skiing Fonzie literally jumped over a shark. It has been said that was the point at which many viewers could no longer suspend disbelief and realized that the show was no longer worth watching.

These days, "jump the shark" is more of a pop culture term that can refer to the downfall of almost anything. With that said, you have to wonder if loudmouths like Coulter and Maher have finally jumped the shark.

Don't get me wrong, their type will always attract the people that will not only listen to the outrageous, but crave it. After all, talk shows don't go off the air just because they begin to take the easy route of attracting viewers with "Is my man cheatin' on me" lie detector tests and "Who's my baby's daddy" paternity tests.

But will any significant number of reasonable people continue to take seriously the likes of Maher and Coulter? The unfortunate part of it is, the term "controversy" will probably get dragged through the mud with them.

Outrageous people often give controversy a bad name, but controversy is not always a bad thing. Controversy can break down barriers that need to be broken down. Problems rarely get solved by people agreeing not to disagree and by wrapping things up with a great big group hug.

I definitely buy into the idea that people often need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy or to get a point across. But that may be the litmus test for controversy: Is there any sort of a halfway legitimate point trying to be made? Regarding Coulter and Maher, I would say no.

Therein lies the problem. When you have such an individual, who no longer even bothers to try to make a point, it becomes evident that their whole identity is tied to being outrageous, and they must continuously up the ante regardless of whether or not they have anything meaningful to say. Because as soon as their audience becomes desensitized to a certain level of outrageousness, a controversial figure has little choice but to up the dosage, or risk becoming irrelevant.

Even if they start out with a good message, it can quickly turn from edgy, thought provoking material, to a stream of venom laced with any bizzare or distasteful thought that pops into their mind.

Saying those kinds of things doesn't make a person courageous or clever, it just signals a disconnect with reason and a lack of any sort of filter.