Yes, I did actually read the article (unlike many commenters going on about China this or China that), which is why I found the title misleading, since Broadcom isn't even a Chinese company. I'm glad that the other commenter linked to that article because that author doesn't forget to remind the reader "However, Broadcom is not a Chinese company."
> The proposed acquisition by the Singapore-based Broadcom would have been the largest deal in technology history, creating a major force in the development of the computer chips that power smartphones and many internet-connected devices.
I mean, if the company is a Singapore-based company, then how is the author not reminding us it isn't Chinese? Broadcom is only mentioned twice in the article, so a 50% reminder rate isn't that bad.
> The clash erupted in public on Tuesday after the United States government, citing national security concerns, called for a full investigation into a hostile bid to buy the American chip stalwart Qualcomm — a review that is often a death knell for a corporate deal.
And the end of the third paragraph:
> But a government panel said the takeover could weaken Qualcomm and give its Chinese rivals an advantage.
If the US government panel wasn't making a fuss over this, the NyTimes would have nothing to report. The author is actually reporting the facts that exist (US concerns over this acquisition with a focus on China), they aren't making these facts up.
If you want to criticize about why this article is all about China, your beef is with the US government panel, not the author of this article.