It happened fast. One minute, you're scrolling through a meticulously curated feed of prestige journalism, and the next, you’re hitting a paywall or stumbling over a headline that feels just a little too "clicky" for a century-old institution. We have to talk about why that is not good NYT became such a persistent sentiment among readers who grew up treating the Gray Lady like gospel. It isn't just about one bad article or a typo. It’s about the friction between a legacy brand trying to survive the 2020s and a core audience that feels the soul of the product is drifting toward something unrecognizable.
Journalism is hard. Staying profitable while maintaining a massive global newsroom is even harder. But when people say "that is not good NYT," they aren't usually talking about the stock price or the subscription growth, which, honestly, have been doing pretty well under CEO Meredith Kopit Levien. They're talking about the vibe shift. They’re talking about the perceived "Games-ification" of the news and the way the opinion section sometimes feels like it's designed specifically to set Twitter on fire.
The Crossword and the Newsroom: A Tension of Identity
The New York Times isn't just a newspaper anymore. It’s a bundle. If you look at the quarterly earnings reports from the last few years, you’ll see a massive influx of subscribers who aren't there for the investigative reporting on international conflicts. They’re there for Wordle. They’re there for Connections. They’re there for a recipe for the perfect gochujang chicken.
This is where the "that is not good NYT" argument gains traction. Critics argue that by leaning so heavily into lifestyle and gaming, the "hard news" core is being diluted. It’s a weird paradox. The revenue from the games basically funds the Baghdad bureau, yet the presence of the games makes some purists feel like the brand is cheapened.
Think about the interface. You open the app to check on a breaking global crisis, and you’re greeted by a bright yellow banner celebrating your 50-day streak in a word game. It’s jarring. It’s effective for business, sure, but it creates this psychological dissonance. You’ve got high-stakes democracy reporting sitting right next to "Spelling Bee," and for a lot of people, that juxtaposition is exactly why they feel the direction of the paper is off-track.
The Opinion Section Paradox
Nothing fuels the that is not good NYT fire quite like the Opinion section. It’s a lightning rod. Whether it’s a column by Bret Stephens or a guest essay that seems to take a contrarian stance just for the sake of it, the feedback loop is almost always negative on social media.
👉 See also: Finding an IRS Tax Tables 2023 PDF Free Download: What You’re Actually Looking For
But here is the thing: the Times wants that.
Engagement is the currency of the modern web. If an opinion piece makes you angry enough to share it and tell everyone why it’s wrong, the Times still gets the click. They get the data. They might even get a new subscriber who wants to read the rebuttal. This strategy, while brilliant from a business standpoint, is exhausting for the reader. It feels cynical. It feels like the paper is prioritizing "the discourse" over actual insight, leading to that nagging feeling that the quality has dipped in favor of controversy.
That Is Not Good NYT: Decoding the Quality Myth
Is the writing actually worse? That’s a tough one to prove with data. If you look at Pulitzer wins, the Times is still crushing it. They still have some of the best data journalists in the world—people like those on the Upshot team who can turn complex census data into something you can actually understand.
However, the "Middle-Classing" of the content is real. To reach 15 million subscribers, you can't just write for Manhattan intellectuals. You have to write for everyone. This leads to:
- Explainer pieces that feel a bit condescending to long-time readers.
- Lifestyle "trend" pieces about things that happened on TikTok three weeks ago.
- Headlines that use "The [Noun] of [Noun]" structure until your eyes bleed.
When a reader sees a headline like "Why Everyone is Wearing Mismatched Socks" and it's treated with the same gravity as a legislative update, they think, that is not good NYT. It feels like the paper is trying too hard to be "down with the kids," and in the process, it loses that authoritative, slightly aloof voice that made it the paper of record in the first place.
The Tech and the Paywall
We also have to mention the technical side. The paywall has become increasingly aggressive. We get it—journalists need to get paid. But the "gift article" system and the constant nagging to log in can break the user experience.
Have you ever tried to read a breaking news story on a mobile browser only to have the entire screen covered by a subscription pop-up three seconds in? It’s frustrating. It makes the news feel like a gated community. While this is a standard industry practice, the Times is the leader of the pack, so they take the brunt of the heat. When the tech gets in the way of the story, the immediate reaction is that the product just isn't what it used to be.
Moving Toward a Better Balance
So, how do we fix this? Or rather, how does the Times address the that is not good NYT crowd without tanking their revenue?
It’s about compartmentalization. The "All the News That's Fit to Print" motto is a heavy burden. Maybe the app needs to be less of a Swiss Army knife and more of a curated experience. Give the news its own space, away from the distractingly fun games and the "How to Spend Your Sunday" fluff.
The Times also needs to reckon with its "Both-Sidesing" problem. In an effort to appear objective, they sometimes give equal weight to arguments that are factually lopsided. This drives the core news-consuming audience crazy. True authority comes from calling things what they are, not from finding a middle ground that doesn't actually exist.
What You Can Do as a Reader
If you find yourself frustrated, you don't have to just complain. There are ways to navigate the modern Times without losing your mind.
- Customize Your Feed: Use the "Following" feature in the app to prioritize specific reporters rather than just the general "Top Stories" feed. This cuts through the noise.
- Newsletter Focus: Some of the best Times reporting is now tucked away in specific newsletters like "The Morning" or specialized beats like "Climate Forward." These often feel more cohesive than the main homepage.
- Engage with Public Editors (sorta): The Times famously got rid of its Public Editor role years ago, which many think was a huge mistake. However, they still respond to massive public outcries. If a piece is genuinely bad, the "Letters to the Editor" section and public social pressure still hold some weight.
The reality is that "that is not good NYT" is a symptom of a much larger shift in how we consume information. We want our institutions to be perfect, but they are run by humans and driven by bottom lines. The Times is a mirror of the current media environment: fragmented, slightly chaotic, and trying to be everything to everyone at once.
To get the most out of your subscription—or your occasional free clicks—you have to be a more active consumer. Don't just let the algorithm feed you the most controversial opinion piece of the day. Seek out the long-form investigations that take six months to produce. That’s where the "Good NYT" still lives, even if it’s buried under a pile of Wordle scores and trend pieces about cottagecore.
Focus on the reporters who have consistently delivered high-quality work over the years. Look for the names you recognize from major breaking news events. By supporting the high-level journalism specifically, you're voting with your clicks for the version of the New York Times that deserves to stay around for another century.
Stop scrolling the "Trending" tab. It’s almost always where the most "not good" content lives because outrage is the easiest way to trend. Instead, bookmark the "Special Projects" or "Investigative" categories. You’ll find that the quality hasn't disappeared; it's just been diluted by the sheer volume of a 24/7 digital cycle. Managing your own intake is the only way to bypass the fluff and get back to the substance that made the paper essential in the first place.