Apparently, Mr. Kane doesn't listen to much talk radio. Take Charlie's screener for example, he seems to enjoy letting dissenting callers on the air. And why not? When it provides for fodder like this, it's hard not to enjoy it.
Most bloggers that I've seen have email addresses, too. Every single time I've written McBride, for example, I've recieved a response.
And I don't think I need to go back to McBride's archives to pull the numerous posts that showcased her discourse with Kane via email. Which is to say, Kane is out of his element here. Of all the bloggers, I think, McBride is the most likely to respond, and the most likely to do so publicly by posting emails to her blog.
Furthermore this idea of a call screener not letting people on-air because they disagree with with the host is completely out of line with the notion of a call screener. It's actually easier for the host to continue the discourse and to get the lines lit up when the host is debating. To my knowledge the screener ensures that the person is audible, not on a cell phone with a weak signal and able to get their point across quickly and coherently.
And finally, I find it even more ironic that Kane keeps referring to the screeners as the problem seeing as Kane has the biggest screener of all: himself. When Kane actually responds to an email or a phone call, he gets to "screen" which ones he makes public, unlike the comment section of blogs, where most anyone can immediately make public their words. And if Letters to the editor is his response, well it's no surprise that those letters are "screened" as well.
Once again Kane lets his mouth get the best of him. Instead of owning up, he just keeps digging deeper.
If he disagrees with my opinion, of course, he is free to comment about it below.