It’s no secret that President Donald J. Trump is likely a narcissist. He’s certainly not the first occupant of the Oval Office to have this quality, but he is perhaps the most brazen example of it. Despite many of his critics, myself included, in near agreement over this diagnosis, we happen to suffer from another neurosis. We obsess over his every utterance, and it may come at a cost. I’d like to make a recommendation to increase the happiness, vitality, and focus of millions of Americans: Stop giving President Trump attention.

We now face a global pandemic and require decisive leadership to guide the nation through a crisis. Rather than using the most significant national challenge since 9/11 to demonstrate that all the controversial statements, tweets, and antics are secondary to being a leader, President Trump has instead confirmed the opposite. Those seemingly trivial qualities of his presidency will always be central.

But Trump isn’t just now acting as a capricious, attention-craving fiend; he has always been that. We have spent the past three years — more if you count his regrettable, decades-long media presence — bearing witness to Trump TV. He is remarkably consistent in his contempt for critics, offensive rhetoric, and stunning narcissism. A Pew Research poll confirmed this, reporting that 80 percent of respondents view Trump as ‘selfish.’ But this was not just Democrats; 73 percent of self-described Republicans see his behavior as self-centered. So why do we respond with complete shock to his tweets, press conferences, and rallies that only demonstrate this consistency?

“It has been clear for some time that the constant media criticism of the president likely has unintended consequences.”

What should we do differently? It can seem futile to ignore the most visible leader in the world, but the current structure of opposition is not working. Trump’s lust for attention means that media coverage ultimately plays in his favor. If the media and his critics become less reactionary to the utterly predictable behavior patterns that the president engages in, it may take away some of his ability to dominate the conversation.

To our great fortune, governors across the nation are choosing to ignore the president. After two groups of governors, one on the East Coast and the other on the West, convened to decide the criteria needed to open up their states, Trump rebuked them and declared that his “authority is total” to determine when the country reopens. Several of these Governors, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York, flatly rejected this assertion by the president. Gov. Cuomo used a press conference to give a lengthy constitutional history lesson explaining why Trump’s statement is false.

While the President did respond to these criticisms with a characteristic immaturity, he ultimately revealed how fragile his will is. Two days later, he reversed his statements claiming total authority, instead choosing to place the onus on the states to lift restrictions. This reversal is not an example of the president moderating his behavior, but how Trump cannot stand being seen as wrong. He could not sustain the claim that he had total authority over the states, and he would have been publically embarrassed if states chose to ignore a premature lifting of restrictions. The decision by these governors to not listen to Trump’s ignorant claims of executive authority meant that they kicked the soapbox out from under him. They said no, and Trump was forced to engage in some revisionism — as he often does — and reframed the whole conversation to act as though he had never claimed total authority in the situation.

He has now mounted another offensive against several of the nation’s governors, sending out tweets calling for citizens of Virginia, Michigan, and Minnesota to “LIBERATE” their states. Before we raise our arms in protest over a subversive effort by the president towards his fellow executives, we need to remember that he shares these tweets knowing that the press will devote an unreasonable share of their coverage to it. Only 19% of Twitter users follow the President, which represents less than 5% of the country, yet his tweets reliably expand into mainstream media and reach a wider audience.

If CNN decided to no longer cover the president’s tweets, the lack of coverage strips some legitimacy from what he posts on the social media platform. We have all convinced ourselves that his tweets have value, but they often don’t. Unfortunately, much of the coverage of his Twitter account focuses on the President’s hot takes and opinions that have little significance on the leadership of the United States. Endless reactions to Trump’s clear provocations serves his interests, but not his critics’. Additionally, having pundits preach to the choir about how his tweets share false information, and provoke division only serves to fan the flames of his media paranoia. The president and his supporters already think that mainstream media has rallied against him, so continual coverage only provides evidence for that narrative and deepens the divide.

The media is starting to show some sense, with several networks beginning to cut away from the White House’s daily briefings once it becomes clear they’ve shifted from information sessions to campaign rallies. Hopefully, this suggests a trend that will continue to gain momentum. Still, in order to not paradoxically aid President Trump’s interests, we need to become more consistent in how we treat his coverage.

It has been clear for some time that the constant media criticism of the president likely has unintended consequences. Even Dean Baquet, the Executive Editor of the New York Times, admitted to some complicity in the 2016 election. He asserted that the media fascination with Trump’s candidacy likely helped propel him to the front of the Republican nomination. They were not solely responsible for his successful presidential bid, but it’s no secret that the around the clock coverage of his campaign aided him in his march to the White House.

In many ways, it suggests a degree of masochism among those who continue to observe the president’s daily absurdities. We know the effects of giving attention to Trump’s antics can be catastrophic, yet we continue to engage in the behavior. The blame can’t be entirely placed on the media, either. I know that I have participated in many exchanges with friends and colleagues who employ a therapeutic humor to rationalize the lunacy of Trump’s behavior. However, the fixation on the man may come at the cost of successful opposition to Trump’s administration.

“Propgandizing only works if we continue to pay attention to the propaganda.”

Amidst this pandemic, the president has confirmed the urgency of changing how we witness his presidency. The White House’s daily task force briefings have become a bizarre spin-off of the regular coverage. The worst part is how transparent the President is about how he views these events. Recently, he gloated over the number of viewers for each briefing, comparing it to a popular reality dating show. The comparison is appropriate, as Trump’s television appearances often resemble entertainment more than news.

Considering the large viewership, what does the president inform the public about during these briefings? Largely nothing. While Dr. Deborah Birx, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Vice President Mike Pence do share helpful information regarding the response to the virus, Trump does not. He uses them to absolve responsibility for his response to the infection, criticizes journalists, and propagandizes. Last week, he aired a poorly cut video to make it appear as though he had made decisive actions early on to combat the disease. Despite the excruciating clarity that it was merely a piece of propaganda to bolster the president, we all continued to watch.

“Having news channels behave more like PBS or the BBC is certainly less sexy, but maybe that is what we need right now.”

Propgandizing only works if we continue to pay attention to the propaganda. It can be tempting to view the metaphorical car crash or have self-awareness of the surreal quality of what we are witnessing. Still, then we must admit that we are participating in its legitimacy. More importantly, it’s not those that are engaged in politics who we need to worry about, but rather those who aren’t. For Americans who are not political animals, and trust the institution of the presidency, Trump’s dishonesty can be more destructive.

We all know that the president is often at odds with the truth. In January, the Washington Post had tallied more than 16,000 falsehoods given by the president since he took office. At some point, we need to recognize that this is an untenable relationship to have. Allowing the president to have unfiltered access to millions of Americans means that whatever he utters has unearned legitimacy. Considering that he can make seemingly contradictory statements within 24 hours — and even a single speech — Americans cannot continue to pay attention.

We cannot let President Trump’s rhetoric go without some opposition. Now, more than ever, poor information can come at the cost of public safety. If the president says something that could risk lives, the press must cover it. But we need to ask ourselves if we need to watch President Trump self-aggrandizing, talk about his border wall, or call another journalist terrible? Perhaps this is a plea for media coverage that is less sensationalized and opinionated. Having news channels behave more like PBS or the BBC is certainly less sexy, but maybe that is what we need right now. The status quo does nothing but project information that we do not need, and that ultimately distorts our perception of normalcy. We need to remember what normal feels like, and a 24 hour broadcast of Trump TV only makes the absurdity feel less odd each passing day.