A news article linked from the NYTimes.com home page carries the headline: "Some Surprising Good News: Bookstores Are Booming and Becoming More Diverse."
The diversity the Times is talking about is racial diversity ("many of the new stores that opened during the pandemic are run by nonwhite booksellers"), not ideological or viewpoint diversity, which could partly explain why the Times drops the convention of journalistic neutrality and opens the headline with instructing readers that this is "Good News." On other topics the Times mostly at least attempts to pretend simply to deliver the news and defer to the readers to decide for themselves whether the news is good or bad. We don't see, for example, "Some Surprising Bad News: A Mass Shooting at a July 4 Parade."
It's hard to know for sure precisely what accounts for the Times labeling this article explicitly as "Good News." Maybe the Times headline writers don't actually trust the newspaper's own readers to agree that increased racial diversity in bookstore ownership and management is good news, and the headline writers think the readers need to be heavy-handedly told that it is? Or maybe there are internal career-advancement incentives at the Times that reward newsroom employees for signaling that they are on board with the racial-diversity-is-super-important-but-viewpoint-and-religious-diversity-doesn't-matter point of view?
Either way, headlines like this one are not "good news" for those paying Times readers who wish the newspaper would play it straight with the facts rather than bossing readers around about how they are supposed to react.
To be clear, I oppose racial discrimination. But one possibility left unexplored by the Times article is that the rise in racial diversity among independent booksellers is a sign that white people don't think there's much money to be made there. The lead example in the Times article is of someone who raised money via GoFundMe and "a neighborhood grant." It's not exactly venture capital saying, I've got a great idea to earn huge returns on investment by competing with Amazon.com. Is it really "good news" that now that independent retail bookselling isn't really a hugely profitable business anymore, it's attracting more minority businesspeople? By labeling the story as "good news," the Times precludes the consideration of alternative storylines that might be more complicated and nuanced. Not every piece of news fits so neatly into a "good news" or "bad news" box, which is why it's usually a bad idea for headline writers to pigeonhole complicated realities with "good" or "bad" labels.