The stakes have never been higher for American democracy.

The most likely winner of the Republican primary in 2024 called for the disruption of the certification of the electoral vote in 2020, insists without evidence that the 2020 election was stolen, refuses to take part in the Republican National Committee primary debates, refers to political adversaries as “vermin,” and has vowed to use the Justice Department to get vengeance on political enemies.

After 25 years studying media and politics, I believe that journalists and news professionals are committed — in theory — to democratic health. However, even with that theoretical commitment, for decades the press’s focus on performance over substance, personalities over issues, and conflict over harmony has regularly posed a challenge to democracy.

Today, these same journalistic norms are benefiting the populist authoritarian candidate.

In 1985, media scholar Neil Postman argued that the dominant language of television is entertainment. As such, the dominant characteristic of political leaders that visual news media are best at highlighting is not expertise, leadership, competence, authenticity, or honesty, but rather “performance.” We will not learn who the best person for the job of the presidency actually is, but we might come away from campaign coverage knowing who the best person is to play president on TV.

But Postman was writing at a time of relatively high interparty agreement, relatively high trust in government and media, low polarization, and political parties that were less separated along the lines of race, religion, and culture than they are today. He was writing in an era of mass broadcast media, when three networks reached most Americans, and cable tv was in its infancy. His concerns were about the dumbing down of political life, and the hollow political considerations that stem from superficial political coverage.

It was the era of Michael Deaver, the political strategist who helped cultivate the avuncular image of President Ronald Reagan by staging photo ops of the president eating jellybeans, riding a horse, or drinking beer with working-class voters, footage that would inevitably make it into the evening news that night. In 1985, journalistic norms contributed to the public’s sense that the best person to play president on TV was just such a man. Considerations of policy were besides the point.

Today, the dominant language of televisual media (online and on TV) is still entertainment — but because the political media context has changed, so too has the ethos of what we find entertaining. Against the backdrop of elite polarization, socio-demographically distinct political parties, hostility toward members of the other party, and woefully low trust in institutions, we are no longer entertained by affirmation of institutions or support for the status quo. With a splintered media environment whose economics reinforce our social and cultural differences, the press’s focus on personalities and conflict will reward leaders who use aggressive language to target political opponents or social groups deemed a threat, or who sow the seeds of popular distrust.

In this divisive, polarized, identity-centered political context, which is more likely to be rewarded with press coverage: the candidate who claims “I alone can fix it,” or the one vowing to work with the two houses of Congress to come to some compromise? The candidate who refers to political enemies as “a sick nest of people that needs to be cleaned out,” or one who insists on the rights of political opponents to express their views?

My fear is that in 2024, journalistic norms will contribute to the public’s sense that the best person to play president on TV is the authoritarian populist one.