Alliance Theory suggests that the survival of an institution like a newspaper depends on its ability to serve as a coordination tool for a powerful alliance. Media outlets do not simply sell information. They sell the ability for a specific group of people to synchronize their beliefs and actions. The current financial disparity between the New York Times and the Washington Post reflects their different successes in maintaining this coordination function.
The New York Times successfully transitioned from a profane regional paper to a sacred national symbol for the American elite (using Jeffrey Alexander’s frame). It acts as the primary “sacred center” for the liberal-professional alliance. By moralizing news events through the framework of universal values, the Times provides the “focal point” for elite convergence. Its subscribers do not just pay for news. They pay to remain part of the dominant coalition. The Times uses “generalization of consciousness” to turn mundane political events into rituals of purification. This creates a high social cost for leaving the alliance. If an elite professional stops reading the Times, they lose the ability to speak the shared moral language of their peers. This makes the subscription a “moral obligation” rather than a discretionary purchase, ensuring high, recurring revenue.
The Washington Post currently struggles because its alliance is less stable. During the Trump administration, the Post functioned as a vital tool for the anti-Trump alliance, famously adopting the slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” This move sacralized the paper and provided a clear coordination signal. However, once that specific “polluter” left the center of daily focus, the Post failed to find a new sacred mission that could sustain a broad coalition. Without a clear enemy to coordinate against, the Post drifted back into the realm of the “profane.” It became just another source of information in a crowded market.
Stephen Turner’s analysis of expertise also applies here. The New York Times possesses a greater amount of “liberal property” in the form of perceived expert authority. It has successfully branded its reporters as the ultimate high priests of truth. The Washington Post, despite its history, has seen its expert authority diluted by its close association with a single owner, Jeff Bezos. This association makes its signals appear “particularist” and driven by personal interest rather than “universal” values.
In the language of “Everything is Bullshit,” the New York Times produces a higher quality of “bullshit”—moral narratives that are more effective at masking the concrete interests of its alliance. The Times provides a sense of “ritual communitas” for its readers, making them feel like they are part of a sacred struggle for justice. The Washington Post has become less effective at this symbolic work. As a result, the alliance it once coordinated has fragmented, leading to the loss of the “sacred” status that drives profitability in a moralized attention economy.
ChatGPT says: Alliance Theory explains this cleanly once you stop treating journalism as a content business and start treating it as an alliance business.
The New York Times sells alliance membership
The Times is not primarily selling news. It sells elite identity. A subscription is a status signal that says: I belong to the educated, moral, credentialed class that understands the world correctly. Alliance Theory predicts this is monetizable. People will reliably pay to affirm group belonging, especially when the group defines itself as virtuous and embattled.
The Washington Post sells institutional virtue
The Post still thinks it is selling watchdog journalism and democratic stewardship. That worked when institutions were trusted. It fails when institutions themselves are contested. Alliance Theory says institutional legitimacy is no longer a stable consumer good. Identity is.
Moral clarity versus moral obligation
The Times offers moral clarity. The Post offers moral obligation.
Clarity feels empowering. Obligation feels like homework.
People pay for reassurance that they are right, not reminders that democracy is fragile and requires sacrifice.
The Times aligned with a winning elite coalition
The Times embedded itself early in the post-2016 professional-managerial alliance. Cultural elites, universities, NGOs, global capital, and credentialed professionals all see the Times as their house organ. Alliance Theory predicts this produces subscription resilience even when trust in “media” declines overall.
The Post is stuck defending a shrinking center
The Post’s brand is tied to “democracy dies in darkness,” which assumes a shared reverence for institutions. That center has eroded. Alliance Theory says defending the center is costly when elites themselves are fragmented. The Post ends up preaching to fewer people with less enthusiasm.
The Times made polarization profitable
The Times learned that polarization is not a bug. It is a revenue strategy. When alliances harden, people seek daily confirmation that their side is moral and rational. The Times delivers this without sounding hysterical. The Post often sounds alarmed. Alarm exhausts consumers.
Cultural production versus civic ritual
The Times behaves like a cultural producer. Podcasts, games, lifestyle, cuisine, therapy language. It integrates into daily life.
The Post behaves like a civic priest. Sermons, warnings, historical gravity. Alliance Theory says priesthoods struggle when belief wanes. Culture persists.
Elite signaling beats investigative valor
Investigative journalism wins Pulitzers. It does not win subscribers. Alliance Theory predicts this. Investigations threaten alliances. Identity reinforcement strengthens them. The Times balances exposés with constant affirmation of elite norms. The Post overinvests in moral labor that produces little consumer loyalty.
Bezos made the problem visible, not worse
Ownership matters less than alignment. The Post’s problems predate Jeff Bezos’ disengagement. Alliance Theory says capital cannot save an institution misaligned with the dominant status coalition. Money amplifies fit. It cannot create it.
The decisive difference
The Times answers the question: Who am I in this world?
The Post answers the question: What must we defend?
People pay for the first in an age of identity conflict. They cancel the second when they feel powerless.
The New York Times is profitable because it functions as a high-status alliance badge with daily reinforcement.
The Washington Post is struggling because it still believes legitimacy flows from institutional virtue rather than coalition identity.
