The NYeffingTimes has people capable of actual reporting;

the rest are a bunch of leftist operatives with bylines.  In evidence of,
To review why this is absolutely worthy of coverage, Swalwell’s interaction with the alleged spy known as Fang Fang included, according to Axios, Fang placing an intern in Swalwell's office and helping to fundraise for his 2014 reelection campaign. In 2015, the FBI provided Swalwell a "defensive briefing" to warn him of the threat she appeared to pose.

So, the first obvious question is this: Given how easily Swalwell was duped, why did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) shortly thereafter place him on the House Intelligence Committee, which oversees the CIA and therefore has access to the highest level of sensitive, classified information?

The New York Times doesn't seem to care about getting an answer to that question.

Of the biases we see in major media, the sin of omission is one that seems to occur only when the protagonist of a major story has a (D) next to his or her name. So, when the New York Times, which has a whopping 7 million subscribers and is considered the country's most influential publication, doesn't see the Swalwell story as a story at all, it tells you just as much about its moral compass as it does its editorial decisions.
There's more.