I was pleasently surprised at how well it went, especially when one considers how the media treated TRH tour in November, 2009. The pressing question amongst many correspondents seemed to be "is the public's enthusiasm for the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall a by-product of their enthusiasm for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge?" While this may very well have played a part in the public's turning out in a amazingly large numbers, the tour was not overtly dominated by comparisons between Charles and William. Despite a categorical, republican dismissal of members of the royal family as being nothing more than mere "celebrities," there was next to no suggestion here of mere "celebrity worship." The media was very interested in what TRH were actually doing, not in who designed their attire, as was quite clearly the case last summer vis-a-vis the Duchess of Cambridge.
The inevitable ignorance and immaturity coming from media figures notwithstanding (i.e. the future "King of England," "Regina's royal-watchers," Charles and Camilla's "fans"), I was pleased with how well the media covered the 2012 royal tour. I do have a few comments, however, about how they did this:
1) CBC: Excellent coverage, but I could really do without all of the annoying voice-over commentary (I could barely hear the bands at the military muster because Evan Solomon kept talking over them). The CBC also had the right idea as far as symbolism was concerned; whenever the newscast began a feature on the royal tour, a maple leaf logo would appear on the screen. Oh yes, speaking of Evan Solomon, I was disappointed with those he had on his "Firing Line" a couple of nights ago discussing the relevance of monarchy in Canada. Stockwell Day seemed to suggest that we should keep the monarchy because it has a huge economic impact on Britain; Brad Lavigne complained about how the monarchy doesn't represent the values of "my generation," and Martha Hall Findlay gave a rather vague statement about how the monarchy appeals to our thirst for celebrity culture. Clearly, our politicians don't quite get it (save for, perhaps, the Premier of Saskatchewan, who gave an outstanding speech in the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly).
2) CTV: Excellent coverage, and often more in-depth than that of the CBC. It was only here that I saw a debate between about the monarchy take place; unfortunately, their "royal commentator" didn't exactly present a good case for keeping the institution (saying "it means a lot to veterans" isn't enough, and it allowed for the republican to babble on about how we can become a parliamentary republic rather easily, even though he obviously didn't provide viewers with the details as to what exactly this parliamentary republic will look like). As with the CBC, the voice-over commentary became quite annoying after a while.
3) CPAC: Excellent (and very detailed) coverage, with no voice-over commentary, whch allowed for those of us watching on television to appreciate all of the ceremonies, music, speeches, and walkabouts at our leisure, without being condescendingly taken through the tour by royal "experts" and ad-libbing news anchors. Unfortunately, a massive Union Flag showed up on the screen every time the royal tour was played out on television, which can have the effect of sending the wrong message. Perhaps the Prince of Wales' Candian standard would have been better "background material," as it were.
All in all, however, this tour, however short, was well-executed and relatively well-covered by journalists and correspondents.