Talk Radio and the GreenStone Media NetworkShannon Sonn
As a for-profit venture, revenue generation forms a significant component of GreenStone's model. Yet a broader set of goals give depth and dimension to the network's purpose and self-concept. Company literature, analysis of programming, and conversations with broadcasters and executives reveal efforts to situate both the network and its audience as active participants in the national discourse. GreenStone's founders shaped the network as a mechanism to engage, edify and inspire listeners. They reach out to "women who, ... interestingly enough, don't read newspapers, who don't watch television news and who really are uninformed to a degree that's a little scary in a democracy." Daily programming and community building efforts seek to enrich listener's lives, steer public conversation, and ultimately provoke positive change in individual listeners, in their communities and the nation. Hilliard illustrates: "Part of our goal is to get information out there in an environment that is attractive, entertaining and that will start people talking, thinking, sharing ideas, laughing and become part of their lives for the betterment of all of us."
Because GreenStone Media recently joined the scene, judging its impact on the listening public proves a difficult – if not virtually impossible – task. Langan and Kahany label feedback as 'overwhelmingly positive.' Listeners participate via e-mail and telephone. Interestingly, Kahaney reports that men represent the majority of callers during their morning show. GreenStone signed its tenth affiliate in late November. Still in the experimental stage, GreenStone's long-term success remains uncertain. With one exception, broadcasters had no prior radio experience. Many advertisers, waiting for GreenStone to maintain a solid listening base, have yet to respond. As a national network they must bridge geographic, cultural and socio-economic divides to stay relevant to diverse audiences. GreenStone faces an uphill battle at it works to establish itself as both a reliable resource for women and a solvent business.
To become a power player in the national discourse, GreenStone will have to move away, albeit not entirely, from the voice that dominates today's broadcasts. GreenStone's on-air personalities still seem hesitant or unwilling to employ more subversive language and style. Undoubtedly, business concerns contribute to this cautiousness. Hilliard confirms,
"Almost all [major] groups and stations are owned and run by conservative white males ... and given that, if we end up being or start being highly political, especially with a progressive bent, we will have a hard time keeping the affiliates that we have. We walk a line. We think it is okay to walk that line because we think we can get information out. By having a discussion and by having multiple points of view we can achieve our goals."
Inevitably, especially in the beginning stages, sacrifices must be made. During the mid-term elections, broadcasters incorporated election issues. Lisa Birnbach (whose show tends to broach more politicized subject matter) encouraged listeners to vote and dedicated air-time to discussion of specific election concerns. In general, election coverage did not change the balance of topics discussed during each show. It also did not penetrate deeply into the issues. This characteristic applies more broadly as well. Cursory treatment of questions surfaces as a consistent tendency. At times, programming lacks the degree of sharpness and insightfulness necessary to provoke vigorous debate. Just as nonpartisan does not mean apolitical, intensity does not necessarily involve disrespect and antagonism. Smart, thought-provoking, and cutting-edge talk radio requires rigor and incisiveness.
Reporting from a women's perspective and capturing subjects that get passed up or excluded from public conversation and public policy can do substantial good to advance women's causes. Better informed and more fully engaged mothers, business and political leaders, wives, and community activists can in turn strengthen and edify their respective communities. Yet questions linger about the value and long-term advisability of promoting categories that can set individuals and groups in opposition unnecessarily. Predetermined ideologies and meanings attached to labels like woman or man, gay or straight, Republican or Democrat, Christian or Muslim, Eastern or Western create the illusion of a divided world in which ostensibly competing interests must vie for supremacy. Such an approach sees the world in terms of absolutes, oppositions, and extremes, leaves little room for flexibility and compromise, and often opens the door to hostility and conflict. Perhaps one day we can transcend these divides and promote a worldview that recognizes that beyond the labels exists the common thread of humanity. Perhaps one day GreenStone can redirect its emphasis on inclusiveness and help to make this happen.
Shannon Sonn is an M.A. candidate in American Studies at Columbia University in the City of New York.