Discussions

My opinion, lighten up. People can have opinions and radio djs are meant to be funny or sarcastic and get listeners to call in and create discussion. I personally think Starfm has a great morning show. I might not agree with everything they say, but I just try to find the humour in it all and if I don’t like it I know I can change the station. Life is too short to be bothered by a radio DJ LOL!

Haven't heard how specifically this is being discussed on radio..... but to me generally speaking it isn't always a radio hosts job to be "professional" so much as it is to generate discussion and be entertaining. Tyler has a knack for the latter. It would be a different story if this was during their regular hourly news reading but I get the feeling this is more of chatter between songs? Maybe you could provide examples so people know a little more about what we're talking about?

Stations because of that reason! Nobody cares what your opinion is on everything. Play the damn music! Lol  
 
On another note - but sticking too radio personalities....was Jana back on the farm this am? I've been listening to that morning show lately and noticed she hadn't been on air for a few weeks since sleeping in...again! Lol I prefer Tim on his own.  
 
Safe bet is always Trent B and Frank on Qcountry. Awesome morning show!

While I wouldn’t necessarily go as far to call Tyler’s commentary on the royal engagement “offensive”, I for one did not enjoy the chatter. But, there is an off button to the radio, which I utilized. Sometimes I enjoy the morning show, other times I do not. Today happened to be one of the days I did not.

Comedy is subjective and radio personalities don't exactly take oaths of impartiality, as long as no lines have been crossed into what society has deemed objectively offensive, like racism, don't see the issue.  
A little friendly comedic mocking of everyone including themselves, their colleagues, and people that call in is basically part of the job description of radio personalities, as long as it's good natured and not a serious straight faced personal attack then what's the issue? I don't see why the Royals should be any sort of exception.  
 
Consider there was a time that the British Royals were considered above such reproach from us mere Commoners, in fact it would be considered tantamount to treasonous actions with consequences of persecution and/or death to do so.

He called the Royals "glorified ribbon cutters"  
 
Both William and Harry have distinguished military careers. Harry served overseas in Afghanistan in 2008. He didn't get any special treatment other than he went under a different name and it was kept out of the media  
 
Prince William has just recently retired from his role as a Sea King helicopter search and rescue pilot and has saved numerous lives doing so  
 
Princess Diana was a huge humanitarian working on lots of different charity projects.  
 
I think to call them glorified ribbon cutters really discredits the sacrifices they have made  
 
Sure some of the Royals just ride the coat tails of being born into their situation but some like Harry, William and Diana I believe have/did really use their Fortunate situation to try and do some good in the world.  
 
Amber made a great and valid point when challenging Tyler's obnoxious attitude towards the royals...  
 
When he commented "I don't get why anyone is interested"  
 
She said..  
 
"It's basically celebrity. We are interested in their lives because they are in the public eye"  
 
Have an opinion. I'm all for it but basically after evey song this morning he would bang on about the royal wedding and how dumb it is, put on a stupid voice and mock people... Stereotypically woman...for having an interest in it.  
 
I get that maybe he's trying to be "entertaining" and spark conversation... And I suppose he achieved one of those tasks because there's a thread going on, on ebrandon about it. I for one had to turn it off because it was getting annoying.  
 
And I do think it's offensive because it's making fun of an entire a countries Heritage. In the UK the monarchy has a 68% approval rating with only 9% thinking they are bad and the remaining 13% being impartial.

There's a distinction between the actions done in their official capacity of Royals (such as cutting ribbons), and what they do in a personal capacity. -By which I mean the mocking and cynicism of their official ceremonial role is not by entension denigrating their personal services to society.  
 
To say or imply that the royal family represents an entire country's heritage reduces and belittles the historical relevance of everything and everyone else that should be equally as representative, or are they just simple peasants who's contributions aren't worthy of any mentionable significance?  
The heritage of the country is the country itself, not one titled over-privileged family.  
 
Your opinion is yours and it's fine to have, but personally I don't see the reason for continued worshipping and pedestalling of royal figures in the 21st century.

The Monarchy ship has sailed long ago. I find it funny year after year countries foot the bill for them for a personal taxpayer paid holiday. Offering them only the best of the best and for what?

There are much better things to get butt hurt about that are going on in the world! Don't like it change the station, even though the radio stations in Brandon are GARBAGE! I usually hit up ACC's radio station (106.5) or CBC (97.9).