That's because the media too is bought and paid for by the liberal left wing agenda.
Getting sympathetic coverage on this event was going to be tough from the get-go. I don't know that you have to jump straight to conspiracy
Reporters have to reduce an issue to a couple of minutes for broadcast. They get a couple of sound bites from each side: on one side you have an angler who says "Our access to salmon is limited and we'd like that changed. We can increase rec access to salmon without harming at-risk stocks" and on the other you have a DFO-type saying "The runs this year are historically low. We've been working on enforcement and conservation."
The average person probably can't name a salmon species besides Sockeye. How can the media be expected to convey the nuances of this issue in a 2-minute segment?
Reminds me of when the RCMP retroactively banned the 25-round Butler Creek mags for the Ruger 10/22. They'd been legal for years and they became illegal suddenly and without notice because the mags could be used in a newer handgun. Except there were very few of these particular handguns in Canada and the mag had been made for the rifle; the pistol (I forget the name now) happened to take the 10/22 mags and it would have been illegal to use the mags with the pistol anyways! There was an argument to be made that the banning was arbitrary, capricious, and unfair but good luck complaining to anyone outside of a range or sporting goods store. The public didn't understand or care... they just heard armed weirdos complaining about not being able to put enough bullets in their guns