Is this the case? The NYT seemed much more reasonable on the Russia stuff than say, most cable news.
> the Times basically ended up apologising and saying they wouldn't do it again.
This did not happen. I'm assuming you're referring to this passage from an article two years later:
> The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.
> A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts. But the article’s tone and headline — “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” — gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just beginning.
> Democrats say that article pre-emptively exonerated Mr. Trump, dousing chances to raise questions about the campaign’s Russian ties before Election Day.
> Just as the F.B.I. has been criticized for its handling of the Trump investigation, so too has The Times.
This is not "apologising and saying they wouldn't do it again."
I agree that the term "conspiracy theory" is not used in a balanced way. Mainstream democrat theories that turn out to be without merit just stop being reported on (such as the Steele Dossier), whereas theories from either left or right fringe generally are called conspiracy theories.