From the article:Only one minor charge of dubious construction was admitted to. “Engaging in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives”.“…The Subcommittee and the Special Counsel recommend that the appropriate sanction should be reprimand and a payment reimbursing the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000”.(Source: House Report 105 page 94 “para’s #2 and #6) (If you want to read the final House report you can find it here in PDF it’s only 137 pages
Ultimately, the answer to your question is, "Because the net effect of the ethics' campaign against Newt was a successful 'borking'.". . . and the reason for that, ultimately, is the fact that an "objective" journalist and a "liberal" politician differ only in the hat that they are wearing and not at all in their politics.. . . and the reason for that is that under the wire service journalism paradigm, journalists all hype each other and journalism as an entity - there is no ideological competition, editorial page opinion ghettos notwithstanding, permitted in the "borg" of journalism. Journalism is ultimately all about the self interest of journalists - and "liberal" politicians have no principle superior to that of going along and getting along with journalism (Republicans, OTOH, at least occasionally stand up for the targets of journalism's exploitation).